A general update

Hmmm… Slightly more than 3 weeks since I posted anything here. A couple of things happened in the meanwhile.


1. Wrapping up of writing QM scripts:

First, I wrapped up my simulations of QM. I had reached a stage (just in my mind, neither on paper nor on laptop) whereby the next thing to implement would have been: the simplest simulations using my new approach. … Ummm… I am jumping ahead of myself.

OK, to go back a bit. The way things happened, I had just about begun pursuing Data Science when this QM thingie (conference) suddenly came up. So, I had to abandon Data Science as is, and turn my attention full-time to QM. I wrote the abstract, sent it to the conference, and started jotting down some of the early points for the eventual paper. Frequent consultations with text-books was a part of it, and so was searching for any relevant research papers. Then, I also began doing simulations of the simplest textbook cases, just to see if I can find any simpler route from the standard / mainstream QM to my re-telling of the facts covered by it.

Then, as things turned out, my abstract for the conference paper got rejected. However, now that I had gotten a tempo for writing and running the simulations, I decided to complete at least those standard UG textbook cases before wrapping up this entire activity, and going back to Data Science. My last post was written when I was in the middle of this activity.

While thus pursuing the standard cases of textbook QM (see my last post), I also browsed a lot, thought a lot, and eventually found that simulations involving my approach shouldn’t take as long as a year, not even several months (as I had mentioned in my last post). What happened here was that during the aforementioned activity, I ended up figuring out a far simpler way that should still illustrate certain key ideas from my new approach.

So, the situation, say in the first week of December, was the following: (i) Because the proposed paper had been rejected, there was no urgency for me to continue working on the QM front. (ii) I had anyway found a simpler way to simulate my new approach, and the revised estimates were that even while working part-time, I should be able to finish the whole thing (the simulations and the paper) over just a few months’ period, say next year. (iii) At the same time, studies of Data Science had anyway been kept on the back-burner.

That’s how (and why) I came to wrap up all my activity on the QM front, first thing.

I then took a little break. I then turned back to Data Science.


2. Back to Data Science:

As far as learning Data Science goes, I knew from my past experience that books bearing titles such as: “Learn Artificial Intelligence in 3 Days,” or “Mastering Machine Learning in 24 Hours,” if available, would have been very deeply satisfying, even gratifying.

However, to my dismay, I found that no such titles exist. … Or, may be, such books are there, but someone at Google is deliberately suppressing the links to them. Whatever be the case, forget becoming a Guru in 24 hours (or even in 3 days), I found that no one was promising me that I could master even just one ML library (say TensorFlow, or at least scikit-learn) over even a longer period, say about week’s time or so.

Sure there were certain other books—you know, books which had blurbs and reader-reviews which were remarkably similar to what goes with those mastering-within-24-hours sort of books. However, these books had less appealing titles. I browsed through a few of these, and found that there simply was no way out; I would have to begin with Michael Nielsen’s book [^].

Which I did.

Come to think of it, the first time I had begun with Nielsen’s book was way back, in 2016. At that time, I had not gone beyond the first couple of sections of the first chapter or so. I certainly had not come to even going through the first code snippet that Nielsen gives, let alone running it, or trying any variations on it.

This time around, though, I decided to stick it out with this book. I had to. … What was the end result?

Well, unlike me, I didn’t take any jumps while going through this particular book. I began reading it in the given sequence, and then found that I could even continue with the same (i.e., reading in sequence)! I also made some furious underlines, margin-notes, end-notes, and all that. (That’s right. I was not reading this book online; I had first taken a printout.) I also sketched a few data structures in the margins, notably for the code around the “w” matrices. (I tend to suspect every one else’s data structures except for mine!) I pursued this activity covering about everything in the book, except for the last chapter. It was at this point that finally my patience broke down. I went back to my usual self and began jumping back and forth over the topics.

As a result, I can’t say that I have finished the book. But yes, I think I’ve got a fairly idea of what’s there in it.

So there.


3. What books to read after Nielsen’s?

Of course, Nielsen’s book wasn’t the only thing that I pursued over the past couple of weeks. I also very rapidly browsed through some other books, checked out the tutorial sites on libraries like scikit-learn, TensorFlow, etc. I came to figure out two things:

As the first thing, I found that I was unnecessarily getting tense when I saw young people casually toss around some fearsome words like “recurrent learning,” “convolutional networks,” “sentiments analysis,” etc., all with such ease and confidence. Not just on the ‘net but also in real life. … I came to see them do that when I attended a function for the final-rounds presentations at Intel’s national-level competition (which was held in IISER Pune, a couple of months ago or so). Since I had seen those quoted words (like “recurrent learning”) only while browsing through text-books or Wiki articles, I had actually come to feel a bit nervous at that event. Ditto, when I went through the Quora answers. Young people everywhere in the world seemed to have put in a lot of hard-work in studying Data Science. “When am I going to catch up with them, if ever?” I had thought.

It was only now, after going through the documentation and tutorials for these code libraries (like scikit-learn) that I came to realize that the most likely scenario here was that most of these kids were simply talking after trying out a few ready-made tutorials or so. … Why, one of the prize-winning (or at least, short-listed) presentations at that Intel competition was about the particles-swam optimization, and during their talk, the students had even shown a neat visualization of how this algorithm works when there are many local minima. I had got impressed a lot by that presentation. … Now I gathered that it was just a ready-made animated GIF lifted from KDNuggets or some other, similar, site… (Well, as it turns out, it must have been from the Wiki! [^])

As the second thing, I realized that for those topics which Nielsen doesn’t cover, good introductory books are hard to find. (That was a bit of an understatement. My real feel here is that, we are lucky that Nielsen’s book is at all available in the first place!)

…If you have any tips on a good book after Nielsen’s then please drop me an email or a comment; thanks in advance.


4. A tentative plan:

Anyway, as of now, a good plan seems to be: (i) first, to complete the first pass through Nielsen’t book (which should take just about a couple of days or so), and then, to begin pursuing all of the following, more or less completely simultaneously: (ii) locating and going through the best introductory books / tutorials on other topics in ML (like PCA, k-means, etc); (iii) running tutorials of ML libraries (like scikit-learn and TensorFlow); (iv) typing out LaTeX notes for Nielsen’s book (which would be useful eventually for such things as hyper-parameter tuning), and running modified (i.e., simplified) versions of his code (which means, the second pass through his book); and finally (v) begin cultivating some pet project from Data Science for moonlighting over a long period of time (just the way I have maintained a long-running interest in the micro-level water-resources engineering).

As to the topic for the pet project, here are the contenders as of today. I have not finalized anything just as yet (and am likely not to do so for quite some time), but the following seem to be attractive: (a) Predicting rainfall in India (though getting granular enough data is going to be a challenge), (b) Predicting earth-quakes (locations and/or intensities), (c) Identifying the Indian classical “raaga” of popular songs, etc. … I also have some other ideas but these are more in the nature of professional interests (especially, for application in engineering industries). … Once again, if you feel there is some neat idea that could be adopted for the pet project, then sure point it out to me. …


…Anyway, that’s about it! Time to sign off. Will come back next year—or if some code / notes get written before that, then even earlier, but no definite promises.

So, until then, happy Christmas, and happy new year!…


A song I like:

(Marathi) “mee maaze mohita…”
Lyrics: Sant Dnyaaneshwar
Music and Singer: Kishori Amonkar


[One editing pass is still due; should be effected within a day or two. Done on 2018.12.18 13:41 hrs IST.]

Advertisements

Would it happen to me, too? …Also, other interesting stories / links

1. Would it happen to me, too?

“My Grandfather Thought He Solved a Cosmic Mystery,”

reports Veronique Greenwood for The Atlantic [^] [h/t the CalTech physicist Sean Carroll’s twitter feed]. The story has the subtitle:

“His career as an eminent physicist was derailed by an obsession. Was he a genius or a crackpot?”

If you visit the URL for this story, the actual HTML page which loads into your browser has another title, similar to the one above:

“Science Is Full of Mavericks Like My Grandfather. But Was His Physics Theory Right?”

Hmmm…. I immediately got interested. After all, I do work also on foundations of quantum mechanics. … “Will it happpen to me, too?” I thought.

At this point, you should really go through Greenwood’s article, and continue reading here only after you have finished reading it.


Any one who has worked on any conceptually new approach would find something in Greenwood’s article that resonates with him.

As to me, well, right at the time that attempts were being made to find examiners for my PhD, my guide (and even I) had heard a lot of people say very similar things as Greenwood now reports: “I don’t understand what you are saying, so please excuse me.” This, when I thought that my argument should be accessible even to an undergraduate in engineering!

And now that I continue working on the foundations of QM, having developed a further, completely new (and more comprehensive) approach, naturally, Greenwood’s article got me thinking: “Would it happen to me, too? Once again? What if it does?”


…Naah, it wouldn’t happen to me—that was my conclusion. Not even if I continue talking about, you know, QM!


But why wouldn’t something similar happen to me? Especially given the fact that a good part of it has already happened to me in the past?

The reason, in essence, is simple.

I am not just a physicist—not primarily, anyway. I am primarily an engineer, a computational modeller. That’s why, things are going to work out in a different way for me.

As to my past experience: Well, I still earned my PhD degree. And with it, the most critical part of the battle is already behind me. There is a lot of resistance to your acceptance before you have a PhD. Things do become a lot easier once you have gone successfully past it. That’s another reason why things are going to work out in a different way now. … Let me explain in detail.


I mean to say, suppose that I have a brand-new approach for resolving all the essential quantum mechanical riddles. [I think I actually do!]

Suppose that I try to arrange for a seminar to be delivered by me to a few physics professors and students, say at an IIT, IISER, or so. [I actually did!]

Suppose that they don’t respond very favorably or very enthusiastically. Suppose they are outright skeptical when I say that in principle, it is possible to think of a classical mechanically functioning analog simulator which essentially exhibits all the essential quantum mechanical features. Suppose that they get stuck right at that point—may be because they honestly and sincerely believe that no classical system can ever simulate the very quantum-ness of QM. And so, short of calling me a crack-pot or so, they just directly (almost sternly) issue the warning that there are a lot of arguments against a classical system reproducing the quantum features. [That’s what has actually happened; that’s what one of the physics professors I contacted wrote back to me.]

Suppose, then, that I send an abstract to an international conference or so. [This too has actually happend, too, recently.]

Suppose that, in the near future, the conference organizers too decline my submission. [In actual reality, I still don’t know anything about the status of my submission. It was in my routine searches that I came across this conference, and noticed that I did have about 4–5 hours’ time to meet the abstracts submissions deadline. I managed to submit my abstract within time. But since then, the conference Web site has not got updated. There is no indication from the organizers as to when the acceptance or rejection of the submitted abstracts would be communicated to the authors. An enquiry email I wrote to the organizers has gone unanswered for more than a week by now. Thus, the matter is still open. But, just for the sake of the argument, suppose that they end up rejecting my abstract. Suppose that’s what actually happens.]

So what?

Since I am not a physicist “proper”, it wouldn’t affect me the way it might have, if I were to be one.

… And, that way, I could even say that I am far too smart to let something like that (I mean some deep disappointment or something like that) happen to me! … No, seriously! Let me show you how.

Suppose that the abstract I sent to an upcoming conference was written in theoretical/conceptual terms. [In actual reality, it was.]

Suppose now that it therefore gets rejected.

So what?

I would simply build a computational model based on my ideas. … Here, remember, I have already begun “talking things” about it [^]. No one has come up with a strong objection so far. (May be because they know the sort of a guy I am.)

So, if my proposed abstract gets rejected, what I would do is to simply go ahead and perform a computer simulation of a classical system of this sort (one which, in turn, simulates the QM phenomena). I might even publish a paper or two about it—putting the whole thing in purely classical terms, so that I manage to get it published. (Before doing that, I might even discuss the technical issues involved on blogs, possibly even at iMechanica!)

After such a paper (ostensibly only on the classical mechanics) gets accepted and published, I will simply write a blog post, either here or at iMechanica, noting how that system actually simulates the so-and-so quantum mechanical feature. … Then, I would perform another simulation—say using DFT. (And it is mainly for DFT that I would need help from iMechanicians or so.) After it too gets accepted and published, I will write yet another blog post, explaining how it does show some quantum mechanical-ness. … Who knows such a sequence could continue…

But such a series (of the simulations) wouldn’t be very long, either! The thing is this.

If your idea does indeed simplify certain matters, then you don’t have to argue a lot about it—people can see its truth real fast. Especially if it has to do with “hard” sciences like engineering—even physics!

If your basic idea itself isn’t so good, then, putting it in the engineering terms makes it more likely that even if you fail to get the weakness of your theory, someone else would. All in all, well and good for you.

As to the other possibility, namely, if your idea is good, but, despite putting it in the simpler terms (say in engineering or simulation terms), people still fail to see it, then, well, so long as your job (or money-making potential) itself is not endangered, then I think that it is a good policy to leave the mankind to its own follies. It is not your job to save the world, said Ayn Rand. Here, I believe her. (In fact, I believed in this insight even before I had ever run into Ayn Rand.)


As to the philosophic issues such as those involved in the foundations of QM—well, these are best tackled philosophically, not physics-wise. I wouldn’t use a physics-based argument to take a philosophic argument forward. Neither would I use a philosophical argument to take a physics-argument forward. The concerns and the methods of each are distinctly different, I have come to learn over a period of years.

Yes, you can use a physics situation as being illustrative of a philosophic point. But an illustration is not an argument; it is merely a device to make understanding easier. Similarly, you could try to invoke a philosophic point (say an epistemological point) to win a physics-based argument. But your effort would be futile. Philosophic ideas are so abstract that they can often be made to fit several different, competing, physics-related arguments. I would try to avoid both these errors.

But yes, as a matter of fact, certain issues that can only be described as philosophic ones, do happen to get involved when it comes to the area of the foundations of QM.

Now, here, given the nature of philosophy, and of its typical practitioners today (including those physicists who do dabble in philosophy), even if I become satisfied that I have resolved all the essential QM riddles, I still wouldn’t expect these philosophers to accept my ideas—not immediately anyway. In fact, as I anticipate things, philosophers, taken as a group, would never come to accept my position, I think. Such an happenstance is not necessarily to be ascribed to the personal failings of the individual philosophers (even if a lot of them actually do happen to be world-class stupid). That’s just how philosophy (as a discipline of studies) itself is like. A philosophy is a comprehensive view of existence—whether realistic or otherwise. That’s why it’s futile to expect that all of the philosophers would come to agree with you!

But yes, I would expect them to get the essence of my argument. And, many of them would, actually, get my argument, its logic—this part, I am quite sure of. But just the fact that they do understand my argument would not necessarily lead them to accept my positions, especially the idea that all the QM riddles are thereby resolved. That’s what I think.


Similarly, there also are a lot of mathematicians who dabble in the area of foundations of QM. What I said for philosophers also applies more or less equally well to them. They too would get my ideas immediately. But they too wouldn’t, therefore, come to accept my positions. Not immediately anyway. And in all probability, never ever in my lifetime or theirs.


So, there. Since I don’t expect an overwhelming acceptance of my ideas in the first place, there isn’t going to be any great disappointment either. The very expectations do differ.

Further, I must say this: I would never ever be able to rely on a purely abstract argument. That would feel like too dicey or flimsy to me. I would have to offer my arguments in terms of physically existing things, even if of a brand new kind. And, machines built out of them. At least, some working simulations. I would have to have these. I would not be able to rest on an abstract argument alone. To be satisfactory to me, I would have to actually build a machine—a soft machine—that works. And, doing just this part itself is going to be far more than enough to keep me happy. They don’t have to accept the conceptual arguments or the theory that goes with the design of such (soft) machines. It is enough that I play with my toys. And that’s another reason why I am not likely to derive a very deep sense of disenchantment or disappointment.


But if you ask me, the way I really, really like think about it is this:

If they decline my submission to the conference, I will write a paper about it, and send it, may be, to Sean Carroll or Sabine Hosenfelder or so. … The way I imagine things, he is then going to immediately translate my paper into German, add his own name to ensure its timely publication, and … . OK, you get the idea.

[In the interests of making this post completely idiot-proof, let me add: Here, in this sub-section, I was just kidding.]


2. The problem with the Many Worlds:

“Why the Many Worlds interpretation has many problems.”

Philip Ball argues in an article for the Quanta Mag [^] to the effect that many worlds means no world at all.

No, this is not exactly what he says. But what he says is clear enough that it is this conclusion which becomes inescapable.

As to what he actually says: Well, here is a passage, for instance:

“My own view is that the problems with the MWI are overwhelming—not because they show it must be wrong, but because they render it incoherent. It simply cannot be articulated meaningfully.”

In other words, Ball’s actual position is on the epistemic side, not on the ontic. However, his arguments are clear enough (and they often enough touch on issues that are fundamental enough) that the ontological implications of what he actually says, also become inescapable. OK, sometimes, the article unnecessarily takes detours into non-essentials, even into something like polemics. Still, overall, the write up is very good. Recommended very strongly.

Homework for you: If the Many Worlds idea is that bad, then explain why it might be that many otherwise reasonable people (for instance, Sean Carroll) do find the Many Worlds approach attractive. [No cheating. Think on your own and write. But if cheating is what you must do, then check out my past comment at some blog—I no longer remember where I wrote it, but probably it was on Roger Schlafly’s blog. My comment had tackled precisely this latter issue, in essential terms. Hints for your search: My comment had spoken about data structures like call-stacks and trees, and their unfolding.]


3. QM as an embarrassment to science:

“Why quantum mechanics is an “embarrassment” to science”

Brad Plumer in his brief note at the Washington Post [^] provides a link to a video by Sean Carroll.

Carroll is an effective communicator.

[Yes, he is the same one who I imagine is going to translate my article into German and… [Once again, to make this post idiot-proof: I was just kidding.]]


4. Growing younger…

I happened to take up a re-reading of David Ruelle’s book: “Chance and Chaos”. The last time I read it was in the early 1990s.

I felt younger! … May be if something strikes me while I am going through it after a gap of decades, I will come back and note it here.


5. Good introductory resources on nonlinear dynamics, catastrophe theory, and chaos theory:

If you are interested in the area of nonlinear dynamics, catastrophe theory and chaos theory, here are a few great resources:

  • For a long time, the best introduction to the topic was a brief write-up by Prof. Harrison of UToronto; it still remains one of the best [^].
  • Prof. Zeeman’s 1976 article for SciAm on the catastrophe theory is a classic. Prof. Zhigang Suo (of Harvard) has written a blog post of title “Recipe for catastrophe”at iMechanica [^], in which he helpfully provides a copy of Zeeman’s article. I have strongly recommended Zeeman’s write-up before, and I strongly recommend it once again. Go through it even if only to learn how to write for the layman and still not lose precision or quality.
  • As to a more recent introductory expositions, do see Prof. Geoff Boeing’s blog post: “Chaos theory and the logistic map” [^]. Boeing is a professor of urban planning, and not of engineering, physics, CS, or maths. But it is he who gives the clearest idea about the distinction between randomness and chaos that I have ever run into. (However, I only later gathered that he does have a UG in CS, and a PG in Information Management.) Easy to understand. Well ordered. Overall, very highly recommended.

Apart from it all:

Happy Diwali!


A song I like:

(Hindi) “tere humsafar geet hai tere…”
Music: R. D. Burman
Singers: Kishore Kumar, Mukesh, Asha Bhosale
Lyrics: Majrooh Sultanpuri

[Has this song been lifted from some Western song? At least inspired from one?

Here are the reasons for this suspicion: (1) It has a Western-sounding tune. It doesn’t sound Indian. There is no obvious basis either in the “raag-daari,” or in the Indian folk music. (ii) There are (beautiful) changes in the chords here. But there is no concept of chords in the traditional Indian music—basically, there is no concept of harmony in it, only of melody. (iii) Presence of “yoddling” (if that’s the right word for it). That too, by a female singer. That too, in the early 1970’s! Despite all  the “taan”s and “firat”s and all that, this sort of a thing (let’s call it yoddling) has never been a part of the traditional Indian music.

Chances are good that some of the notes were (perhaps very subconsciously) inspired from a Western tune. For instance, I can faintly hear “jingle bells” in the refrain. … But the question is: is there a more direct correspondence to a Western tune, or not.

And, if it was not lifted or inspired from a Western song, then it’s nothing but a work of an absolute genius. RD anyway was one—whether this particular song was inspired from some other song, or not.

But yes, I liked this song a great deal as a school-boy. It happened to strike me once again only recently (within the last couple of weeks or so). I found that I still love it just as much, if not more.]


[As usual, may be I will come back tomorrow or so, and edit/streamline this post a bit. One update done on 2018.11.04 08:26 IST. A second update done on 2018.11.04 21:01 IST. I will now leave this post in whatever shape it is in. Got to move on to trying out a few things in Python and all. Will keep you informed, probably after Diwali. In the meanwhile, take care and bye for now…]

The bouncing droplets imply having to drop the Bohmian approach?

If you are interested in the area of QM foundations, then may be you should drop everything at once, and go, check out the latest pop-sci news report: “Famous experiment dooms alternative to quantum weirdness” by Natalie Wolchover in the Quanta Magazine [^].

Remember the bouncing droplets experiments performed by Yves Couder and pals? In 2006, they had reported that they could get the famous interference pattern even if the bouncing droplets passed through the double slit arrangement only one at a time. … As the Quanta article now reports, it turns out that when other groups in the USA and France tried to reproduce this result (the single-particle double-slit interference), they could not.

“Repeat runs of the experiment, called the “double-slit experiment,” have contradicted Couder’s initial results and revealed the double-slit experiment to be the breaking point of both the bouncing-droplet analogy and de Broglie’s pilot-wave vision of quantum mechanics.”

Well, just an experimental failure or two in reproducing the interference, by itself, wouldn’t make for a “breaking point,”i.e., if the basic idea itself were to be sound. So the question now becomes whether the basic idea itself is sound enough or not.

Turns out that a new argument has been put forth, in the form of a thought experiment, which reportedly shows why and how the very basic idea itself must be regarded as faulty. This thought experiment has been proposed by a Danish professor of fluid dynamics, Prof. Tomas Bohr. (Yes, there is a relation: Prof. Tomas Bohr is a son of the Nobel laureate Aage Bohr, i.e., a grandson of the Nobel laureate Niels Bohr [^].)

Though related to QM foundations, this thought experiment is not very “philosophical” in nature; on the contrary, it is very, very “physics-like.” And the idea behind it also is “simple.” … It’s one of those ideas which make you exclaim “why didn’t I think of it before?”—at least the first time you run into it. Here is an excerpt (which actually is the caption for an immediately understandable diagram):

“Tomas Bohr’s variation on the famous double-slit experiment considers what would happen if a particle must go to one side or the other of a central dividing wall before passing through one of the slits. Quantum mechanics predicts that the wall will have no effect on the resulting double-slit interference pattern. Pilot-wave theory, however, predicts that the wall will prevent interference from happening.”

… Ummm… Not quite.

From whatever little I know about the pilot-wave theory, I think that the wall wouldn’t prevent the interference from occurring, even if you use this theory. … It all seems to depend on how you interpret (and/or extend) the pilot-wave theory. But if applied right (which means: in its own spirit), then I guess that the theory is just going to reproduce whatever it is that the mainstream QM predicts. Given this conclusion I have drawn about this approach, I did think that the above-quoted portion was a bit misleading.

The main text of the article then proceeds to more accurately point out the actual problem (i.e., the way Prof. Tomas Bohr apparently sees it):

“… the dividing-wall thought experiment highlights, in starkly simple form, the inherent problem with de Broglie’s idea. In a quantum reality driven by local interactions between a particle and a pilot wave, you lose the necessary symmetry to produce double-slit interference and other nonlocal quantum phenomena. An ethereal, nonlocal wave function is needed that can travel unimpeded on both sides of any wall. [snip] But with pilot waves, “since one of these sides in the experiment carries a particle and one doesn’t, you’ll never get that right. You’re breaking this very important symmetry in quantum mechanics.””

But isn’t the pilot wave precisely ethereal and nonlocal in nature, undergoing instantaneous changes to itself at all points of space? Doesn’t the pilot theory posit that this wave doesn’t consist of anything material that does the waving but is just a wave, all by itself?


…So, if you think it through, people seem to be mixing up two separate issues here:

  1. One issue is whether it will at all be possible for any real physical experiment done up with the bouncing droplets to be able to reproduce the predictions of QM or not.
  2. An entirely different issue is whether, in Bohr’s dividing-wall thought-experiment, the de Broglie-Bohm approach actually predicts something that is at a variance from what QM predicts or not.

These two indeed are separate issues, and I think that the critics are right on the first count, but not necessarily on the second.

Just to clarify: The interference pattern as predicted by the mainstream QM itself would undergo a change, a minor but a very definite change, once you introduce the middle dividing wall; it would be different from the pattern obtained for the “plain-vanilla” version of the interference chamber. And if what I understand about the Bohmian mechanics is correct, then it too would proceed to  produce exactly the same patterns in both these cases.


With that said, I would still like to remind you that my own understanding of the pilot-wave theory is only minimal, mostly at the level of browsing of the Wiki and a few home pages, and going through a few pop-sci level explanations by a few Bohmians. I have never actually sat down to actually go through even one paper on it fully (let alone systematically study an entire book or a whole series of articles on this topic).

For this reason, I would rather leave it to the “real” Bohmians to respond to this fresh argument by Prof. Tomas Bohr.

But yes, a new argument—or at least, an old argument but in a remarkably new settings—it sure seems to be.


How would the Bohmians respond?

If you ask me, from whatever I have gathered about the Bohmians and their approach, I think that they are simply going to be nonchalant about this new objection, too. I don’t think that you could possibly hope to pin them down with this argument either. They are simply going to bounce back, just like those drops. And the reason for that, in turn, is what I mentioned already here in this post: their pilot-wave is both ethereal and nonlocal in the first place.


So, yes, even if Wolchover’s report does seem to be misguided a bit, I still liked it, mainly because it was informative on both the sides: experimental as well as theoretical (viz., as related to the new thought-experiment).

In conclusion, even if the famous experiment does not doom this (Bohmian) alternative to the quantum weirdness, the basic reason for its unsinkability is this:

The Bohmian mechanics is just as weird as the mainstream QM is—even if the Bohmians habitually and routinely tell you otherwise.

When a Bohmian tells you that his theory is “sensible”/“realistic”/etc/, what he is talking about is: the nature of his original ambition—but not the actual nature of his actual theory.


To write anything further about QM is to begin dropping hints to my new approach. So let me stop right here.

[But yes, I am fully ready willing from my side to disclose all details about it at any time to a suitable audience. … Let physics professors in India respond to my requests to let me conduct an informal (but officially acknowledged) seminar on my new approach, and see if I get ready to deliver it right within a week’s time, or not!

[Keep waiting!]]


Regarding other things, as you know, the machine I am using right now is (very) slow. Even then, I have managed to run a couple of 10-line Python scripts, using VSCode.

I have immediately taken to liking this IDE “code-editor.” (Never had tried it before.) I like it a lot. … Just how much?

I think I can safely say that VSCode is the best thing to have happened to the programming world since VC++ 6 about two decades ago.

Yes, I have already stopped using PyCharm (which, IMHO, is now the second-best alternative, not the best).


No songs section this time, because I have already run a neat and beautiful song just yesterday. (Check out my previous post.) … OK, if some song strikes me in a day or two, I will return here to add it. Else, wait until the next time around. … Until then, take care and bye for now…


[Originally published on 16 October 2018 22:09 hrs IST. Minor editing (including to the title line) done by 17 October 2018 08:09 hrs IST.]

Absolutely Random Notings on QM—Part 3: Links to some (really) interesting material, with my comments

Links, and my comments:


The “pride of place” for this post goes to a link to this book:

Norsen, Travis (2017) “Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Exploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory,” Springer

This book is (i) the best supplementary book for a self-study of QM, and simultaneously, also (ii) the best text-book on a supplementary course on QM, both at the better-prepared UG / beginning PG level.

A bit expensive though, but extensive preview is available on Google books, here [^]. (I plan to buy it once I land a job.)

I was interested in the material from the first three chapters only, more or less. It was a delight even just browsing through these chapters. I intend to read it more carefully soon enough. But even on the first, rapid browsing, I noticed that several pieces of understanding that I had so painstakingly come to develop (over a period of years) are given quite straight-forwardly here, as if they were a matter of well known facts—even if other QM text-books only cursorily mention them, if at all.

For instance, see the explanation of entanglement here. Norsen begins by identifying that there is a single wavefunction, always—even for a multi-particle system. Then after some explanation, he states: “But, as usual in quantum mechanics, these states do not exhaust the possibilities—instead, they merely form a basis for the space of all possible wave functions. …”… Note the emphasis on the word “basis” which Norsen helpfully puts.

Putting this point (which Norsen discusses with a concrete example), but in my words: There is always a single wavefunction, and for a multi-particle system, its basis is bigger; it consists of the components of the tensor product (formed from the components of the basis of the constituent systems). Sometimes, the single wavefunction for the multi-particle system can be expressed as a result of a single tensor-product (in which case it’s a separable state), and at all other times, only as an algebraic sum of the results of many such tensor-products (in which case they all are entangled states).

Notice how there is no false start of going from two separate systems, and then attempting to forge a single system out of them. Notice how, therefore, there is no hand-waving at one electron being in one galaxy, and another electron in another galaxy, and so on, as if to apologize for the very idea of the separable states. Norsen achieves the correct effect by beginning on the right note: the emphasis on the single wavefunction for the system as a whole to begin with, and then clarifying, at the right place, that what the tensor product gives you is only the basis set for the composite wavefunction.

There are many neat passages like this in the text.


I was about to say that Norsen’s book is the Resnick and Halliday of QM, but then came to hesitate saying so, because I noticed something odd even if my browsing of the book was rapid and brief.

Then I ran into

Ian Durham’s review of Norsen’s book, at the FQXi blog,

which is our link # 2 for this post [^].

Durham helpfully brings out the following two points (which I then verified during a second visit to Norsen’s book): (i) Norsen’s book is not exactly at the UG level, and (ii) the book is a bit partial to Bell’s characterization of the quantum riddles as well as to the Bohmian approach for their resolution.

The second point—viz., Norsen’s fascination for / inclination towards Bell and Bohm (B&B for short)—becomes important only because the book is, otherwise, so good: it carries so many points that are not even passingly mentioned in other QM books, is well written (in a conversational style, as if a speech-to-text translator were skillfully employed), easy to understand, thorough, and overall (though I haven’t read even 25% of it, from whatever I have browsed), it otherwise seems fairly well balanced.

It is precisely because of these virtues that you might come out giving more weightage to the B&B company than is actually due to them.

Keep that warning somewhere at the back of your mind, but do go through the book anyway. It’s excellent.

At Amazon, it has got 5 reader reviews, all with 5 stars. If I were to bother doing a review there, I too perhaps would give it 5 stars—despite its shortcomings/weaknesses. OK. At least 4 stars. But mostly 5 though. … I am in an indeterminate state of their superposition.

… But mark my words. This book will have come to shape (or at least to influence) every good exposition of (i.e. introduction to) the area of the Foundations of QM, in the years to come. [I say that, because I honestly don’t expect a better book on this topic to arrive on the scene all that soon.]


Which brings us to someone who wouldn’t assign the |4\rangle + |5\rangle stars to this book. Namely, Lubos Motl.

If Norsen has moved in the Objectivist circles, and is partial to the B&B company, Motl has worked in the string theory, and is not just partial to it but even today defends it very vigorously—and oddly enough, also looks at that “supersymmetric world from a conservative viewpoint.” More relevant to us: Motl is not partial to the Copenhagen interpretation; he is all the way into it. … Anyway, being merely partial is something you wouldn’t expect from Motl, would you?

But, of course, Motl also has a very strong grasp of QM, and he displays it well (even powerfully) when he writes a post of the title:

“Postulates of quantum mechanics almost directly follow from experiments.” [^]

Err… Why “almost,” Lubos? 🙂

… Anyway, go through Motl’s post, even if you don’t like the author’s style or some of his expressions. It has a lot of educational material packed in it. Chances are, going through Motl’s posts (like the present one) will come to improve your understanding—even if you don’t share his position.

As to me: No, speaking from the new understanding which I have come to develop regarding the foundations of QM [^] and [^], I don’t think that all of Motl’s objections would carry. Even then, just for the sake of witnessing the tight weaving-in of the arguments, do go through Motl’s post.


Finally, a post at the SciAm blog:

“Coming to grips with the implications of quantum mechanics,” by Bernardo Kastrup, Henry P. Stapp, and Menas C. Kafatos, [^].

The authors say:

“… Taken together, these experiments [which validate the maths of QM] indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed, which in turn suggests—as we shall argue in this essay—a primary role for mind in nature.”

No, it didn’t give me shivers or something. Hey, this is QM and its foundations, right? I am quite used to reading such declarations.

Except that, as I noted a few years ago on Scott Aaronson’s blog [I need to dig up and insert the link here], and then, recently, also at

Roger Schlafly’s blog [^],

you don’t need QM in order to commit the error of inserting consciousness into a physical theory. You can accomplish exactly the same thing also by using just the Newtonian particle mechanics in your philosophical arguments. Really.


Yes, I need to take that reply (at Schlafly’s blog), edit it a bit and post it as a separate entry at this blog. … Some other time.

For now, I have to run. I have to continue working on my approach so that I am able to answer the questions raised and discussed by people such as those mentioned in the links. But before that, let me jot down a general update.


A general update:

Oh, BTW, I have taken my previous QM-related post off the top spot.

That doesn’t mean anything. In particular, it doesn’t mean that after reading into materials such as that mentioned here, I have found some error in my approach or something like that. No. Not at all.

All it means is that I made it once again an ordinary post, not a sticky post. I am thinking of altering the layout of this blog, by creating a page that highlights that post, as well as some other posts.

But coming back to my approach: As a matter of fact, I have also written emails to a couple of physicists, one from IIT Bombay, and another from IISER Pune. However, things have not worked out yet—things like arranging for an informal seminar to be delivered by me to their students, or collaborating on some QM-related simulations together. (I could do the simulations on my own, but for the seminar, I would need an audience! One of them did reply, but we still have to shake our hands in the second round.)

In the meanwhile, I go jobless, but I keep myself busy. I am preparing a shortish set of write-ups / notes which could be used as a background material when (at some vague time in future) I go and talk to some students, say at IIT Bombay/IISER Pune. It won’t be comprehensive. It will be a little more than just a white-paper, but you couldn’t possibly call it even just the preliminary notes for my new approach. Such preliminary notes would come out only after I deliver a seminar or two, to physics professors + students.

At the time of delivering my proposed seminar, links like those I have given above, esp. Travis Norsen’s book, also should prove a lot useful.

But no, I haven’t seen something like my approach being covered anywhere, so far, not even Norsen’s book. There was a vague mention of just a preliminary part of it somewhere on Roger Schlafly’s blog several years ago, only once or so, but I can definitely say that I had already had grasped even that point on my own before Schlafly’s post came. And, as far as I know, Schlafly hasn’t come to pursue that thread at all, any time later…

But speaking overall, at least as of today, I think I am the only one who has pursued this (my) line of thought to the extent I have [^].

So, there. Bye for now.


I Song I Like:
(Hindi) “suno gajar kya gaaye…”
Singer: Geeta Dutt
Music: S. D. Burman
Lyrics: Sahir Ludhianvi
[There are two Geeta’s here, and both are very fascinating: Geeta Dutt in the audio, and Geeta Bali in the video. Go watch it; even the video is recommended.]


As usual, some editing after even posting, would be inevitable.

Some updates made and some streamlining done on 30 July 2018, 09:10 hrs IST.

 

And to think…

Many of you must have watched the news headlines on TV this week; many might have gathered it from the ‘net.

Mumbai—and much of Maharashtra—has gone down under. Under water.

And to think that all this water is now going to go purely to waste, completely unused.

… And that, starting some time right from say February next year, we are once again going to yell desperately about water shortage, about how water-tankers have already begun plying on the “roads” near the drought-hit villages. … May be we will get generous and send not just 4-wheeler tankers but also an entire train to a drought-hit city or two…

Depressing!


OK. Here’s something less depressing. [H/t Jennifer Ouellette (@JenLucPiquant) ]:

“More than 2,000 years ago, people were able to create ice in the desert even with temperatures above freezing!” [^]

The write-up mentions a TED video by Prof. Aaswath Raman. Watched it out of idle interest, checked out his Web site, and found another TED video by him, here [^]. Raman cites statistics that blew me!

They spend “only” $24 billion on supermarket refrigeration (and other food-related cooling), but they already spend $42 billion on data-center cooling!!


But, any way, I did some further “research” and landed at a few links, like the Wiki on Yakhchal [^], on wind-catcher [^], etc.  Prof. Raman’s explanation in terms of the radiative cooling was straight-forwards, but I am not sure I understand the mechanism behind the use of a qanat [^] in Yakhchal/windcatcher cooling. It would be cool to do some CFD simulations though.


Finally, since I am once again out of a job (and out of all my saved money and in fact also into credit-card loans due to some health issue cropping up once again), I was just idly wondering about all this renewable energy business, when something struck me.


The one big downside of windmills is that the electricity they generate fluctuates too much. You can’t rely on it; the availability is neither 24X7 nor uniform. Studies in fact also show that in accommodating the more or less “random” output of windmills into the conventional grid, the price of electricity actually goes up—even if the cost of generation alone at the windmill tower may be lower. Further, battery technology has not improved to such a point that you could store the randomly generated electricity economically.

So, I thought, why not use that randomly fluctuating windmill electricity in just producing the hydrogen gas?

No, I didn’t let out a Eureka. Instead, I let out a Google search. After all, the hydrogen gas could be used in fuel-cells, right? Would the cost of packaging and transportation of hydrogen gas be too much? … A little searching later, I landed at this link: [^]. Ummm… No, no, no…. Why shoot it into the natural gas grid? Why not compress it into cylinders and transport by trains? How does the cost economics work out in that case? Any idea?


Addendum on the same day, but after about a couple of hours:

Yes, I did run into this link: “Hydrogen: Hope or Hype?” [^] (with all the links therein, and then, also this: [^]).

But before running into those links, even as my googling on “hydrogen fuel energy density” still was in progress, I thought of this idea…

Why at all transport the hydrogen fuel from the windmill farm site to elsewhere? Why not simply install a fuel cell electricity generator right at the windmill farm? That is to say, why not use the hydrogen fuel generated via electrolysis as a flywheel of sorts? Get the idea? You introduce a couple of steps in between the windmill’s electricity and the conventional grid. But you also take out the fluctuations, the bad score on the 24X7 availability. And, you don’t have to worry about the transportation costs either.

What do you think?


Addendum on 12th July 2018, 13:27 hrs IST

Further, I also browsed a few links that explore another,  solution: using compressed air: a press report [^], and a technical paper [^]. (PDF of the paper is available, but the paper would be accessible only to mechanical engineers though. Later Update: As to the press report, well, the company it talks about has already merged with another company, and has abandoned the above-ground storage of compressed air [^])

I think that such a design reduces the number of steps of energy conversions. However, that does not necessarily mean that the solution involving hydrogen fuel generation and utilization (both right at the wind-farm) isn’t going to be economical.

Economics determines (or at least must determine) the choice. Enough on this topic for now. Wish I had a student working with me; I could have then written a paper after studying the solution I have proposed above. (The idea is worth a patent too. Too bad I don’t have the money to file one. Depressing, once again!!)


OK. Enough for the time being. I may later on add the songs section if I feel like it. And, iterative modifications will always be done, but will be mostly limited to small editorial changes. Bye for now.

 

QM: A couple of defensible statements. Also, a bit on their implications for the QC.

A Special Note (added on 17th June 2018): This post is now a sticky post; it will remain, for some time, at the top of this blog.

I am likely to keep this particular post at the top of this blog, as a sticky post, for some time in the future (may be for a few months or so). So, even if posts at this blog normally appear in the reverse chronological order, any newer entries that I may post after this one would be found below this one.

[In particular, right now, I am going through a biography: “Schrodinger: Life and Thought” by Walter Moore [^]. I had bought this book way back in 2011, but had to keep it aside back then, and then, somehow, I came to forget all about it. The book surfaced during a recent move we made, and thus, I began reading it just this week. I may write a post or two about it in the near future (say within a couple of weeks or so) if something strikes me while I am at it.]


A Yawningly Long Preamble:

[Feel free to skip to the sections starting with the “Statement 1” below.]

As you know, I’ve been thinking about foundations of QM for a long, long time, a time running into decades by now.

I thought a lot about it, and then published a couple of papers during my PhD, using a new approach which I had developed. This approach was used for resolving the wave-particle duality, but only in the context of photons. However, I then got stuck when it came to extending and applying this same approach to electrons. So, I kept on browsing a lot of QM-related literature in general. Then, I ran, notably, into the Nobel laureate W. E. Lamb’s “anti-photon” paper [^], and also the related literature (use Google Scholar). I thought a lot about this paper—and also about QM. I began thinking about QM once again from the scratch, so to speak.

Eventually, I came to abandon my own PhD-time approach. At the same time, with some vague but new ideas already somewhere at the back of my mind, I once again started studying QM, once again with a fresh mind, but this time around much more systematically. …

… In the process, I came to develop a completely new understanding of QM!… It’s been at least months since I began talking about it [^]. … My confidence in this new understanding has only increased, since then.

Today’s post will be based on this new understanding. (I could call it a new theory, perhaps.)


My findings suggest a few conclusions which I think I should not hold back any longer. Hence this post.

I have been trying to locate the right words for formulating my conclusions—but without much satisfaction. Finally, I’ve decided to go ahead and post an entry here anyway, regardless of whether the output comes out as being well formulated or not.

In other words, don’t try to pin me down with the specific words I use here in this post! Instead, try to understand what I am trying to get at. In still other words: the particular words I use may change, but the intended meaning will, from now on, “always” remain the same—ummm…. more or less the same!

OK, so here are the statements I am making today. I think they are well defensible:


Notation:
QM: Quantum Mechanics, quantum mechanically, etc.
CM: Classical Mechanics
QC: Quantum Computer
QS: Quantum Supremacy ([^] and [^])


Statement 1: It is possible to explain all quantum mechanical phenomena on the basis of those principles which are already known (or have already been developed) in the context of classical mechanics.

Informal Explanation 1.1: Statement 1 holds true. It’s just that when it comes to explaining the QM phenomena (i.e., when it comes to supplying a physical mechanism for QM), even if the principles do remain the same, the way they are to be combined and applied is different. These differences basically arise because of a reason mentioned in the next Informal Explanation.

Informal Explanation 1.2: Yes, the tradition of 80+ years, involving an illustrious string of Nobel laureates and others, is, in a way, “wrong.” The QM principles are not, fundamentally speaking, very different from those encountered in the CM. It’s just that some of the objects that QM assumes and talks about are different (only partly different) from those assumed in the CM.


Corollary 1 of Statement 1: A quantum computer could “in principle” be built as an “application layer” on top of the “OS platform” supplied by the classical mechanics.

Informal Explanation 1.C1.1: Hierarchically speaking, QM remains the most fundamental or the “ground” layer. The aspects of the physical reality that CM refers to, therefore, indeed are at a layer lying on top of QM. This part does continue to remain the same.

However, what the Corollary 1 now says is that you can also completely explain the workings of QM in terms of a virtual QM machine that is built on top of the well-known principles of CM.

If someone builds a QC on such a basis (which would be a virtual QC on top of CM), then it would be just a classical mechanically functioning simulator—an analog simulator, I should add—that simulates the QM phenomena.

Informal Explanation 1.C1.2: The phrase “in principle” does not always translate into “easily.” In this case, it in factt is very easily possible that building a big enough a QC of this kind (i.e. the simulating QC) may very well turn out to be an enterprise that is too difficult to be practically feasible.


Corollary 2 of Statement 1: A classical system can be designed in such a way that it shows all the features of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (when the classical system is seen from an appropriately high-level viewpoint).

Informal Explanation 1.C2.1: There is nothing “inherently quantum-mechanical” about entanglement. The well-known principles of CM are enough to explain the phenomena of entanglement.

Informal Explanation 1.C2.2: We use our own terms. In particular, when we say “classical mechanics,” we do not mean these words in the same sense in which a casual reader of the QM literature, e.g. of Bell’s writings, may read them.

What we mean by “classical mechanics” is the same as what an engineer who has never studied QM proper means, when he says “classical mechanics” (i.e., the Newtonian mechanics + the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian reformulations including variational principles, as well as the more modern developments such as studies of nonlinear systems and the catastrophe theory).


Statement 2: It can be shown that even if the Corollary 1 above does hold true, the kind of quantum computer it refers to would be such that it will not be able to break a sufficiently high-end RSA encryption (such as what is used in practice today, at the high-end).

Aside 2.1: I wouldn’t have announced Statement 1 unless I was sure—absolutely goddamn sure, in fact—about the Statement 2. In fact, I must have waited for at least half a year just to make sure about this aspect, looking at these things from this PoV, then from that PoV, etc.


Statement 3: Inasmuch as the RSA-beating QC requires a controlled entanglement over thousands of qubits, it can be said, on the basis of the new understanding (the one which lies behind the Statement 1 above), that the goal of achieving even “just” the quantum supremacy seems highly improbable, at least in any foreseeable future, let alone achieving the goal of breaking the high-end RSA encryption currently in use. However, proving these points, esp. that the currently employed higher-end RSA cannot be broken, will require further development of the new theory, particularly a quantitative theory for the mechanism(s) involved in the quantum mechanical measurements.

Informal Explanation 3.1: A lot of funding has already gone into attempts to build a QC. Now, it seems that the US government, too, is considering throwing some funds at it.

The two obvious goal-posts for a proper QC are: (i) first gaining enough computational power to run past the capabilities of the classical digital computers, i.e., achieving the so-called “quantum supremacy,” and then, (ii) breaking the RSA encryption as is currently used in the real-world at the high-end.

The question of whether the QC-related researches will be able to achieve these two goals or not depends on the question of whether there are natural reasons/causes which might make it highly improbable (if not outright impossible) to achieve these two goals.

We have already mentioned that it can be shown that it will not be possible for a classical (analog) quantum simulator (of the kind we have in mind) to break the RSA encryption.

Thus, we have already made a conclusive statement about this combination of a QC and a goal-post:

  • Combination 1: CM-based QC Simulator that is able to break the RSA encryption.

We have said that it can be shown (i.e. proved) that the above combination would be impossible to have. (The combination is that extreme.)

However, it still leaves open 3 more combinations of a QC and a goal-post:

  • Combination 2: CM-based QC Simulator that exceeds the classical digital computer
  • Combination 3: Proper QC (working directly off the QM platform) that exceeds the classical digital computer
  • Combination 4: Proper QC (working directly off the QM platform) that is able to break the RSA encryption.

As of today, a conclusive statement cannot be made regarding the last three combinations, not even on the basis of my newest approach to the quantum phenomena, because the mathematical aspects which will help settle questions of this kind, have not yet been developed (by me).

Chances are good that such a theory could be developed, at least in somewhat partly-qualitative-and-partly-quantitative terms, or in terms of some quantitative models that are based on some good analogies, sometime in the future (say within a decade or so). It is only when such developments do occur that we will be able to conclusively state something one way or the other in respect of the last three combinations.

However, relying on my own judgment, I think that I can safely state this much right away: The remaining three combinations would be tough, very tough, to achieve. The last combination, in particular, is best left aside, because the combination is far too complex that it can pose any real threat, at least as of today. I can say this much confidently—based on my new approach. (If you have some other basis to feel confident one way or the other, kindly supply the physical mechanism for the same, please, not just “math.”)


So, as of today, the completely defensible statements are the Statement No. 1 and 2 (with all their corollaries), but not the Statement 3. However, a probabilistic judgment for the Statement 3 has also been given.


A short (say, abstract-like) version:

A physical mechanism to explain QM phenomena has been developed, at least in the bare essential terms. It may perhaps become possible to use such a knowledge to build an analog simulator of a quantum computer. Such a simulator would be a machine based only on the well-known principles of classical mechanics, and using the kind of physical objects that the classical mechanics studies.

However, it can also be easily shown that such a simulator will not be able to break the RSA encryption using algorithm such as Shor’s. The proof rests on an idealized abstraction of classical objects (just the way the ideal fluid is an abstraction of real fluids).

On the basis of the new understanding, it becomes clear that trying to break RSA encryption using a QC proper (i.e. a computer that’s not just a simulator, but is a QC proper that directly operates at the level of the QM platform itself) would be a goal that is next to impossible to achieve. In fact, even achieving just the “quantum supremacy” (i.e., beating the best classical digital computer) itself can be anticipated, on the basis of the new understanding, as a goal that would be very tough to achieve, if at all.

Researches that attempt to build a proper QC may be able to bring about some developments in various related areas such as condensed matter physics, cryogenics, electronics, etc. But it is very highly unlikely that they would succeed in achieving the goal of quantum supremacy itself, let alone the goal of breaking the RSA encryption as it is deployed at the high-end today.


A Song I Like:

(Hindi) “dilbar jaani, chali hawaa mastaanee…”
Music: Laxmikant Pyarelal
Singers: Kishore Kumar, Lata Mangeshkar
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi

 


PS: Note that, as is usual at this blog, an iterative improvement of the draft is always a possibility. Done.

Revision History:

  1. First posted on 2018.06.15, about 12:35 hrs IST.
  2. Considerably revised the contents on 2018.06.15, 18:41 hrs IST.
  3. Edited to make the contents better on 2018.06.16, 15:30 hrs IST. Now, am mostly done with this post except, may be, for a minor typo or so, here or there.
  4. Edited (notably, changed the order of the Combinations) on 2018.06.17, 23:50 hrs IST. Also corrected some typos and streamlined the content. Now, I am going to leave this post in the shape it is. If you find some inconsistency or so, simple! Just write a comment or shoot me an email.
  5. 2018.06.27 02:07 hrs IST. Changed the song section.

 

Some suggested time-pass (including ideas for Python scripts involving vectors and tensors)

Actually, I am busy writing down some notes on scalars, vectors and tensors, which I will share once they are complete. No, nothing great or very systematic; these are just a few notings here and there taken down mainly for myself. More like a formulae cheat-sheet, but the topic is complicated enough that it was necessary that I have them in one place. Once ready, I will share them. (They may get distributed as extra material on my upcoming FDP (faculty development program) on CFD, too.)

While I remain busy in this activity, and thus stay away from blogging, you can do a few things:


1.

Think about it: You can always build a unique tensor field from any given vector field, say by taking its gradient. (Or, you can build yet another unique tensor field, by taking the Kronecker product of the vector field variable with itself. Or, yet another one by taking the Kronecker product with some other vector field, even just the position field!). And, of course, as you know, you can always build a unique vector field from any scalar field, say by taking its gradient.

So, you can write a Python script to load a B&W image file (or load a color .PNG/.BMP/even .JPEG, and convert it into a gray-scale image). You can then interpret the gray-scale intensities of the individual pixels as the local scalar field values existing at the centers of cells of a structured (squares) mesh, and numerically compute the corresponding gradient vector and tensor fields.

Alternatively, you can also interpret the RGB (or HSL/HSV) values of a color image as the x-, y-, and z-components of a vector field, and then proceed to calculate the corresponding gradient tensor field.

Write the output in XML format.


2.

Think about it: You can always build a unique vector field from a given tensor field, say by taking its divergence. Similarly, you can always build a unique scalar field from a vector field, say by taking its divergence.

So, you can write a Python script to load a color image, and interpret the RGB (or HSL/HSV) values now as the xx-, xy-, and yy-components of a symmetrical 2D tensor, and go on to write the code to produce the corresponding vector and scalar fields.


Yes, as my resume shows, I was going to write a paper on a simple, interactive, pedagogical, software tool called “ToyDNS” (from Toy + Displacements, Strains, Stresses). I had written an extended abstract, and it had even got accepted in a renowned international conference. However, at that time, I was in an industrial job, and didn’t get the time to write the software or the paper. Even later on, the matter kept slipping.

I now plan to surely take this up on priority, as soon as I am done with (i) the notes currently in progress, and immediately thereafter, (ii) my upcoming stress-definition paper (see my last couple of posts here and the related discussion at iMechanica).

Anyway, the ideas in the points 1. and 2. above were, originally, a part of my planned “ToyDNS” paper.


3.

You can induce a “zen-like” state in you, or if not that, then at least a “TV-watching” state (actually, something better than that), simply by pursuing this URL [^], and pouring in all your valuable hours into it. … Or who knows, you might also turn into a closet meteorologist, just like me. [And don’t tell anyone, but what they show here is actually a vector field.]


4.

You can listen to this song in the next section…. It’s one of those flowy things which have come to us from that great old Grand-Master, viz., SD Burman himself! … Other songs falling in this same sub-sub-genre include, “yeh kisine geet chheDaa,” and “ThanDi hawaaein,” both of which I have run before. So, now, you go enjoy yet another one of the same kind—and quality. …


A Song I Like:

[It’s impossible to figure out whose contribution is greater here: SD’s, Sahir’s, or Lata’s. So, this is one of those happy circumstances in which the order of the listing of the credits is purely incidental … Also recommended is the video of this song. Mona Singh (aka Kalpana Kartik (i.e. Dev Anand’s wife, for the new generation)) is sooooo magical here, simply because she is so… natural here…]

(Hindi) “phailee huyi hai sapanon ki baahen”
Music: S. D. Burman
Lyrics: Sahir
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar


But don’t forget to write those Python scripts….

Take care, and bye for now…

 

“Blog” less; write journal papers!

“‘Blog’ less; write journal papers.”

That’s my NYR for 2018.

Allow me to explain.


My research is not experimental, neither is it connected with, say, design of a new machine or development of a new manufacturing process. The most concrete aspect my work involves only computational modeling. But that too is not of the kind which engineering researchers typically undertake. I don’t do FEM of this multi-physics problem or that. What I work on are some very fundamental issues of physics and engineering.

My research thus is decidedly theoretical, often bordering on being “speculative.” It tends to concentrate on fundamental aspects. For decades by now, I have been trying to tackle some of the trickiest, deepest or very abstract problems (e.g. foundations of QM). At other times, I have been busy just isolating something new as a problem in its right (e.g., instantaneous action-at-a-distance in diffusion, or non-uniqueness of solution to the diffusion equation, or the fundamentality of stress vis-a-vis strain, or mode transitions in ideal vibrations and their relation to vibrations in the real mechanical system, or the physical meaning of the delta of calculus of variations….).

OK, there are some simple experiments here and there I might do. But they are not a very significant aspect of my work. The experiments are more in the nature of illustrations (e.g. melting snowman). They are not even fully in the nature of quantitative validations, let alone the prime vehicles to discovery. So, they are just “potatoes” of my research. The meat is: deep theoretical issues themselves. That’s what it’s like when you say “fundamental.”

The only way in which you can formulate or tackle such problems—fundamental or foundational—is by being a bit “relaxed” about both the specifics of your topic and the way you go about tackling it.

If you believed too much in the existing theory, you wouldn’t be able to spot unidentified problems with it or find new solutions to the known ones. If you try to do theoretical research and if you still try to stick to a schedule like what they do in experimental research (say in designing and fabricating a gadget, complete with bill of materials, or in developing a process, complete with prototype 1, prototype 2, etc.), you wouldn’t able to even get off to a decent start. After all, a schedule can be made from only those ingredients that are already known to you, not of never seen possibilities or unknown ideas. And, while in experimental research, reality has a wonderful way to throw up new possibilities, you have no such luxury in theoretical research. Every “never seen” possibility has to be forged by your own mind. If you don’t think in a relaxed manner, you are never going to believe that the issue is easy enough for you to tackle it.

But one unintended consequence of it all is that, in theoretical research like mine, it’s easy (far too easy in fact) to get a bit too relaxed. It is easy to pursue too many diverse theoretical threads, and in examining them, to run around in circles and so keep on getting back to the same points again and again.

But now I have come to realize that perhaps time has come to stop pursuing new threads in my research and to consolidate what has already been learnt.

The best way I can think of for doing the latter is: writing papers.

In particular, I have to kick aside this one habit: writing things down only when and as “inspiration” strikes.

Writing thoughts down (maintaining pocket diaries) has done a world of good to me. But this long-pursued activity seems to have by now come, in my case, to the point of diminishing marginal utility.

In place of this habit (of keeping on idly brain-storming and noting down possibilities it throws up) I would now like to put in place another habit: writing things (papers, actually) down in a structured, routine, regular, day-to-day, and time-bound manner. Allow me to explain this part too.

Given the way I have pursued my research (and in fact, given even the very nature of problems I ended up tackling), it would have been impossible for me to say something like this:

“OK! January, diffusion paper! February, stress-strain paper! March and April, QM position paper!”

“… What, in February, I don’t write something on QM? neither on diffusion? How ridiculous?”

That is how I would have reacted. But not any more.

Instead, I am now going to be a bit “bureaucratic” about my research. (UGC and AICTE folks ought to be happy in discovering a new soul-mate in me!)

What I am going to do is what I indicated just minutes ago. I am going to make some kind of a “time-table”: this period, work (i.e. actually write papers about) only this particular problem. Leave aside all other issues. Just finish that particular paper. Only then move to those other, more interesting (even alluring) issues in a next delimited period specifically allocated for that. I will have to pursue this policy. And I had better.

After all, while “passively” letting myself jump from issues to issues has yielded a lot of new insights, there are any number of issues where I have “hit the plateau” by now—and I mean those words in a positive sense. By “hitting the plateau,” I mean not a loss of creativity or originality, but a sense, even a firm realization (based on logic) that a certain stage of completeness is already achieved.

And that’s why, I am going to concentrate on “professionally” writing papers, in the next year. Following some kind of a time-bound schedule. As if I were writing a report, or delivering a software product on its schedule. So, it’s high time I became a bit less “creative” and more “professional,” to put it vaguely.

Since I will not be pursuing this bit of this idea or that bit of that idea a lot, I will be blogging less. And since a lot of my research seems to have actually “hit the plateau” in the above-mentioned, positive sense, I would instead be writing papers.

Hence the “slogan”: “`Blog’ less, write journal papers!”

That’s my NYR for 2018…. though I wouldn’t wait for 2018 to arrive before getting going on it. After all, a new year is just an excuse to make resolutions. The digits in the date aren’t important. A definite, demarcated change (“quantum jump” if you will! [LOL!]) is. But a change of the last digit in the YYYY, since it comes only after as long a period as one complete year, is a good time to making the required definite change.

So, there. I will keep you posted, with very brief notes here and there, as to how this paper-writing “business” is actually progressing in my case. My immediate plan is to get going writing the diffusion papers, and to finish writing them, right in January 2018.

Let’s see how things actually progress.


A Song I Like:

This is that Marathi song which I said I had liked a lot during my childhood vacation (see my last 2–3 posts). I still like it. It is the one which has a decidedly Western touch, but without spoiling or compromising on the Indian sense of melody. …

(Marathi) “raajaa saarangaa, maajyaa saarangaa”
Music: Hridaynath Mangeshkar
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar
Lyrics: Shanta Shelke


Bye for now, make a time-table you can stick to, and also take care to execute on it. … Best wishes for a happy and prosperous new year!

Yes I know it!—Part 2

This post directly continues from my last post. The content here was meant to be an update to my last post, but it grew, and so, I am noting it down as a separate post in its own right.


Thought about it [I mean my last post] a lot last night and this morning. I think here is a plan of action I can propose:

I can deliver a smallish, informally conducted, and yet, “official” sort of a seminar/talk/guest lecture, preferably at an IIT/IISER/IISc/similar institute. No honorarium is expected; just arrange for my stay. (That too is not necessary if it will be IIT Bombay; I can then stay with my friend; he is a professor in an engineering department there.)

Once arranged by mutual convenience, I will prepare some lecture notes (mostly hand-written), and deliver the content. (I guess at this stage, I will not prepare Beamer slides, though I might include some audio-visual content such as simulations etc.)

Questions will be OK, even encouraged, but the format will be that of a typical engineering class-room lecture. Discussions would be perfectly OK, but only after I finish talking about the “syllabus” first.

The talk should preferably be attended also by a couple of PhD students or so (of physics/engineering physics/any really relevant discipline, whether it’s acknowledged as such by UGC/AICTE or not). They should separately take down their notes and show me these later. This will help me understand where and how I should modify my notes. I will then myself finalize my notes, perhaps a few days after the talk, and send these by email. At that stage, I wouldn’t mind posting the notes getting posted on the ‘net.

Guess I will think a bit more about it, and note about my willingness to deliver the talk also at iMechanica. The bottom-line is that I am serious about this whole thing.

A few anticipated questions and their answers (or clarifications):

  1. What I have right now is, I guess, sufficient to stake a claim. But I have not taken the research to sufficiently advanced stage that I can say that I have all the clarifications worked out. It’s far more than just a sketchy conceptual idea, and does have a lot of maths too, but it’s less than, say, a completely worked out (or series of) mathematical theory. (My own anticipation is that if I can do just a series of smaller but connected mathematical models/simulations, it should be enough as my personal contribution to this new approach.)
  2. No, as far as QM is concerned, the approach I took in my PhD time publications is not at all relevant. I have completely abandoned that track (I mean to say as far as QM is concerned).
  3. However, my PhD time research on the diffusion equation has been continuing, and I am happy to announce that it has by now reached such a certain stage of maturation/completion that I should be writing another paper(s) on it any time now. I am happy that something new has come out of some 10+ years of thought on that issue, after my PhD-time work. Guess I could now send the PhD time conference paper to a journal, and then cover the new developments in this line in continuation with that one.
  4. Coming back to QM: Any one else could have easily got to the answers I have. But no, to the best of my knowledge, none else actually has. However, it does seem to me now that time is becoming ripe, and not to stake a claim at least now could be tantamount to carelessness on my part.
  5. Yes, my studies of philosophy, especially Ayn Rand’s ITOE (and Peikoff’s explanations of that material in PO and UO) did help me a lot, but all that is in a more general sense. Let me put it this way: I don’t think that I would have had to know (or even plain be conversant with) ITOE to be able to formulate these new answers to the QM riddles. And certainly, ITOE wouldn’t at all be necessary to understand my answers; the general level of working epistemology still is sufficiently good in physics (and more so, in engineering) even today.  At the same time, let me tell you one thing: QM is very vast, general, fundamental, and abstract. I guess you would have to be a “philosophizing” sort of a guy. Only then could you find this continuous and long preoccupation with so many deep and varied abstractions, interesting enough. Only then could the foundations of QM interest you. Not otherwise.
  6. To formulate answers, my natural proclivity to have to keep on looking for “physical” processes/mechanisms/objects for every mathematical idea I encounter, did help. But you wouldn’t have to have the same proclivity, let alone share my broad convictions, to be able to understand my answers. In other words, you could be a mathematical Platonist, and yet very easily come to understand the nature of my answers (and perhaps even come to agree with my positions)!
  7. To arrange for my proposed seminar/talk is to agree to be counted as a witness (for any future issues related to priority). But that’s strictly in the usual, routine, day-to-day academic sense of the term. (To wit, see how people interact with each other at a journal club in a university, or, say, at iMechanica.)
  8. But, to arrange for my talk is not to be willing to certify or validate its content. Not at all.
  9. With that being said, since this is India, let me also state a relevant concern. Don’t call me over just to show me down or ridicule me either. (It doesn’t happen in seminar talks, but it does happen during job interviews in Pune. It did happen to me in my COEP interview. It got repeated, in a milder way, in other engineering colleges in SPPU (the Pune University). So I have no choice but to note this part separately.)
  10. Once again, the issue is best clarified by giving the example. Check out how people treated me at iMechanica. If you are at an IIT/IISc/similar institute/university and are willing to treat me similarly, then do think of calling me over.

More, may be later. I will sure note my willingness to deliver a seminar at an IIT (or at a good University department) or so, at iMechanica also, soon enough. But right now I don’t have the time, and have to rush out. So let me stop here. Bye for now, and take care… (I would add a few more tags to the post-categories later on.)

Is something like a re-discovery of the same thing by the same person possible?

Yes, we continue to remain very busy.


However, in spite of all that busy-ness, in whatever spare time I have [in the evenings, sometimes at nights, why, even on early mornings [which is quite unlike me, come to think of it!]], I cannot help but “think” in a bit “relaxed” [actually, abstract] manner [and by “thinking,” I mean: musing, surmising, etc.] about… about what else but: QM!

So, I’ve been doing that. Sort of like, relaxed distant wonderings about QM…

Idle musings like that are very helpful. But they also carry a certain danger: it is easy to begin to believe your own story, even if the story itself is not being borne by well-established equations (i.e. by physic-al evidence).

But keeping that part aside, and thus coming to the title question: Is it possible that the same person makes the same discovery twice?

It may be difficult to believe so, but I… I seemed to have managed to have pulled precisely such a trick.

Of course, the “discovery” in question is, relatively speaking, only a part of of the whole story, and not the whole story itself. Still, I do think that I had discovered a certain important part of a conclusion about QM a while ago, and then, later on, had completely forgotten about it, and then, in a slow, patient process, I seem now to have worked inch-by-inch to reach precisely the same old conclusion.

In short, I have re-discovered my own (unpublished) conclusion. The original discovery was may be in the first half of this calendar year. (I might have even made a hand-written note about it, I need to look up my hand-written notes.)


Now, about the conclusion itself. … I don’t know how to put it best, but I seem to have reached the conclusion that the postulates of quantum mechanics [^], say as stated by Dirac and von Neumann [^], have been conceptualized inconsistently.

Please note the issue and the statement I am making, carefully. As you know, more than 9 interpretations of QM [^][^][^] have been acknowledged right in the mainstream studies of QM [read: University courses] themselves. Yet, none of these interpretations, as far as I know, goes on to actually challenge the quantum mechanical formalism itself. They all do accept the postulates just as presented (say by Dirac and von Neumann, the two “mathematicians” among the physicists).

Coming to me, my positions: I, too, used to say exactly the same thing. I used to say that I agree with the quantum postulates themselves. My position was that the conceptual aspects of the theory—at least all of them— are missing, and so, these need to be supplied, and if the need be, these also need to be expanded.

But, as far as the postulates themselves go, mine used to be the same position as that in the mainstream.

Until this morning.

Then, this morning, I came to realize that I have “re-discovered,” (i.e. independently discovered for the second time), that I actually should not be buying into the quantum postulates just as stated; that I should be saying that there are theoretical/conceptual errors/misconceptions/misrepresentations woven-in right in the very process of formalization which produced these postulates.

Since I think that I should be saying so, consider that, with this blog post, I have said so.


Just one more thing: the above doesn’t mean that I don’t accept Schrodinger’s equation. I do. In fact, I now seem to embrace Schrodinger’s equation with even more enthusiasm than I have ever done before. I think it’s a very ingenious and a very beautiful equation.


A Song I Like:

(Hindi) “tum jo hue mere humsafar”
Music: O. P. Nayyar
Singers: Geeta Dutt and Mohammad Rafi
Lyrics: Majrooh Sultanpuri


Update on 2017.10.14 23:57 IST: Streamlined a bit, as usual.