The question of multiple dimensions in quantum mechanics:

[exchemist]

Exactly, and then only if they are closely related in terms of frequency and wave-length, recall how difficult it was to jam signals in the second World War. Also, since waves do not recoil but only interfere, how does this whole question of photon emission arise? No recoil? What about the conservation of energy and momentum? Further, the rate of photon emission has proven to be at least in the hundred terahertz range, as definitively proved by the new optical atomic clocks. How do two waves, the incoming electromagnetic wave, and the electron wave-function 'interfere with each other to produce this kind of photon emission? A large part of quantum mechanics has to be taken on blind faith, and a deep belief in the absolute veracity of the mathematical systems used. How can one use imaginary numbers and get a real result? Its like saying 'pigs can fly'. The truth is pigs cannot fly, the trot around on their little trotters. Just that the circumstance exists where I can state: " Pigs can fly." Does not mean that they actually do fly!

I realise you are not responding to me, but since you ask and there may be other readers who wonder about this, photon emission arises by means of something called the "transition dipole moment": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_dipole_moment, to which I have drawn your attention before.

Both linear and angular momentum are conserved during the emission or absorption of a photon by an electron, as well as energy of course. The conservation of angular momentum is one of the features that determines the "selection rules" in spectroscopy. A photon has 1 unit of angular momentum, so the total angular momentum of the electron that absorbs or emits must change by one unit. This is why s ->p transitions are allowed but s -> s transitions are forbidden, as observed in the line spectra of atoms.

As James R says, a free electron cannot absorb or emit a photon, in part because a free electron has no way to change its angular momentum. It is a spin 1/2 particle and this cannot change. When it is in a bound state in an atom, it can have varying amounts of orbital angular momentum as well, so this difficulty does not arise. Furthermore, if it is in the presence of a magnetic field, e.g. from other electrons, or even the atomic nucleus, it can change the orientation of its spin relative to the field, say +1/2 to -1/2 relative to the field, i.e. changing its angular momentum by one unit, so this gives a further range of possibilities for absorption or emission. Cs and Rb atomic clocks make use of such transitions, which involve emission and absorption of photons in the microwave region of the EM spectrum.

As for your remarks about frequency, again as James R says, the frequency of emitted and absorbed photons depends entirely on the energy difference between the intial and final states of the electron. In the hydrogen atom (the simplest atomic quantum system) there are many different sets of spectral lines, depending on which atomic orbital is a the lower one involved, named Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett, Pfund etc. after the scientists that originally characterised them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series. While the lines in the Lyman series are in the UV, those in the Brackett and Pfund series are in the far infra red, i.e. at far lower frequency. So the main Lyman lines have wavelengths of the order of 100nm, i.e. 3,000THz, whereas those of the Pfund series are of the order of 5,000nm i.e. 60THz.

As I say, though, atomic clocks however utilise transitions, not between orbital of different principal quantum number like those I have mentioned for hydrogen, but between level of hyperfine splitting in far heavier atoms. I explained how these arise in post 47 of this thread: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-if-newton-was-not-wrong.166576/page-3#post-3739164. in which I was correcting the misconceptions of somebody called Dilip James. Whoever he may be.

 

[quant]

String theory works in 10 or 11 dimensions from memory, our regular dimensions each orthogonal to the other. String has 6 or so compactified (Calabi - Yau)

A lot of misconceptions going on with Quant.

Misconceptions going on with me? You are talking in everyday terms about 10 or 11 dimensions are you aware of the implications of what you are saying? Do you understand that something orthogonal to something else is not another dimension (?) it is just at right angles to it. People have been trying to describe extra dimensions for the past hundred years ever since Brane (membrane) and string theory was introduced. If you could describe to me a single extra dimension, I won't have a problem with what you are saying. Take your time.

 

[quant]

Now that the insults slurs and snide remarks ( I do not know about the asides) have stopped or are much reduced, ( apart from the occasional derogatory remark) I find that this is a very, very interesting discussion. We are getting to the heart of the problem, this is where it all started, this is where wave-particle duality was adopted. This is the point at which the Schrodinger wave equation and wave-function were introduced. It is a dissection taking place at the very heart of quantum mechanics. Two critical points have been raised by the proponents of quantum mechanics in defense of the quantum mechanics theory of emission and absorption of photons and neither of those arguments holds up to scrutiny. The first point relates to recoil. In Christopher Foot’s Atomic Physics (2nd edition), the recoil process during photon emission is explained in terms of momentum conservation. The photon carries momentum, which results in a recoil of the entire atom (mainly the nucleus). While the electron’s wave function changes due to the energy transition, the recoil does not directly affect the wave function itself, except in subtle ways, the energy of the wave-function itself may change. The motion of the nucleus is crucial for understanding the recoil, but due to the large mass of the nucleus, its recoil velocity is typically very small compared to the momentum of the electron. If P_atom = P_gamma, The momentum change of the atom (which includes both the nucleus and the electron) leads to a recoil velocity v_atom, which is given by:

v_atom = p_gamma/M_atom : If the atom under consideration is the Hydrogen atom (m = 1.62 x 10^-27 kg) and the photon is a 500 THz photon.

Using e = hf to find energy of the photon gives : 3.31 x 10^-19 J

The momentum of the photon is given by e/c = 1.10 x 10^-27 kg/m/s

So the velocity of the atom is given by p_gamma/ m_atom = 1.10 x 10^-27/1.67 x 10^-27 = 0.662 m/s.

Although this recoil might seem huge for an atom that is 10^-10 m in diameter, in the context of the time intervals involved it is quite tiny. Such is the present thinking. HOWEVER, in light of new evidence that the electron emits photons (in this case) at the rate of 500 x 10^12 per second. (n.b. Look up the new optical atomic clocks). For instance if the given 500 THz photon has an energy in electron volts of 6.87 x 10^-19 ev, If this energy is multiplied by 500 x 10^12 = 1.034 x 10^ 15eV ( 1.6 x 10^-4 J) . Enough to completely destroy the atom, especially if, as observation shows, such irradiation can continue for extended periods. Take events in the solar system involving conditions of continuous irradiation.

Conclusion, the present theory must be wrong, not only wrong but irrevocably wrong!

Going on to photon size: Here is what D J Griffiths has to say in his ‘Introduction to Electrodynamics: "The photon is often described as a point particle with no intrinsic size. Its energy and momentum are related to its frequency and wavelength, but these properties do not imply the photon has a well defined spatial extent in the traditional sense. Instead, the photon’s behaviour is governed by its wave-function, and the wave-length determines the spatial extent of the electromagnetic wave associated with the photon. “

I guess no-one did the calculations to show that the size difference was so great 178 million times for the electron, which (He who should not be named) has disparaged so much or 36,000 times approximately the size of the atom, in either case an impossible situation!

(n.b. The equation editor doesn’t seem to be working for me, the end result only adds to the confusion. The simpler notation used may ameliorate the problem.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Going on to photon size: Here is what D J Griffiths has to say in his ‘Introduction to Electrodynamics: "The photon is often described as a point particle with no intrinsic size. Its energy and momentum are related to its frequency and wavelength, but these properties do not imply the photon has a well defined spatial extent in the traditional sense. Instead, the photon’s behaviour is governed by its wave-function, and the wave-length determines the spatial extent of the electromagnetic wave associated with the photon. “

I guess no-one did the calculations to show that the size difference was so great 178 million times for the electron, which (He who should not be named) has disparaged so much or 36,000 times approximately the size of the atom, in either case an impossible situation!

You've been told this is not how it works. You have done yourself a favour by quoting Griffiths that that's not how it works. And yet you still assert, ignorantly, that that's how it works. You are lost to reason; stuck in an echo chamber with an occupant of one. You're hopeless.

 

[quant]

The standard (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum mechanics says that photons can be described as probability waves (roughly speaking). So, light propagates from A to B as a wave. When something measures the light, the wavefunction "collapses" and a photon will be observed (e.g. absorbed by a detector of some kind) at a particular point in space. The probability that the photon will be observed at different points is determined by the wavefunction at each point.

That is a wonderful explanation, one that, if true, or rather, accurate, it would be accepted by everyone and there would be nothing to worry about, would there? The problem is it is not accurate, light according to quantum mechanics does not travel as a wave it travels as a wave-function. In the context of the Copenhagen interpretation, the wave function is seen as a mathematical description of the system's potentialities, or possible states, prior to measurement. According to this view, light (or any quantum system) can be thought of as existing in a superposition of states as it propagates from Point A to Point B. This means that, while the photon is traveling and interacting with the environment, it doesn't have a definite, classical trajectory or precise properties until it is measured. Does light exist or is it real when in such a state?

 

[quant]

You've been told this is not how it works. You have done yourself a favour by quoting Griffiths that that's not how it works. And yet you still assert, ignorantly, that that's how it works. You are lost to reason; stuck in an echo chamber with an occupant of one. You're hopeless.

You seem to swallow the content without making any attempt to digest it. Furthermore, since you persistently have only negative or obfuscative comments, why don't you do yourself a favour and ignore me? I will make one last attempt; do you see what Griffiths is saying, he is saying the photon may be thought of as a point particle but its area of influence is represented by its wave-length, which as I had stated before is too huge when compared to the atom's size, to fit the observed properties and outcomes. You may not agree with this statement, that is no excuse to be rude or insulting.

 

[exchemist]

Misconceptions going on with me? You are talking in everyday terms about 10 or 11 dimensions are you aware of the implications of what you are saying? Do you understand that something orthogonal to something else is not another dimension (?) it is just at right angles to it. People have been trying to describe extra dimensions for the past hundred years ever since Brane (membrane) and string theory was introduced. If you could describe to me a single extra dimension, I won't have a problem with what you are saying. Take your time.

James R has already done this for you in post 73. Suggest you re-read it, more carefully. Take your time.

 

[Pinball1970]

Misconceptions going on with me? You are talking in everyday terms about 10 or 11 dimensions are you aware of the implications of what you are saying?

I did not say it, the String theoreticians did. Just Google string theory ten dimensions.
A lot of your misconceptions are very basic stuff.
In order to tackle QT you need a solid grounding in linear algebra for a start. If you had done some of the basics there you would not be assuming QM needs extra dimensions.
Superposition is nothing to do with extra dimensions either.

I suggest you read some of the detailed responses to your questions.
Then I suggest you follow up with a decent text book. Also, Leonard Susskind has done some free lectures on YouTube via Stanford University.

 

[Pinball1970]

That is a wonderful explanation, one that, if true, or rather, accurate, it would be accepted by everyone and there would be nothing to worry about, would there?

In terms of the science no, there is nothing to worry about. The interpretation of QM is not the same as QT, it does not QT the predictions or results.
Many Physicists do not give it much thought from experience.

 

[exchemist]

You seem to swallow the content without making any attempt to digest it. Furthermore, since you persistently have only negative or obfuscative comments, why don't you do yourself a favour and ignore me? I will make one last attempt; do you see what Griffiths is saying, he is saying the photon may be thought of as a point particle but its area of influence is represented by its wave-length, which as I had stated before is too huge when compared to the atom's size, to fit the observed properties and outcomes. You may not agree with this statement, that is no excuse to be rude or insulting.

Except for the fact that it has already been explained to you - by the very source you are quoting, in fact - that the electron does not behave as a point particle (still less as some mythical entity with a "classical" electron radius) in its interactions with atoms.

This is an observed fact, not some unsubstantiated theoretical idea. When a person starts arguing with observed facts in a science discussion, they deservedly lose respect.

 

[quant]

I did not say it, the String theoreticians did. Just Google string theory ten dimensions.
A lot of your misconceptions are very basic stuff.
In order to tackle QT you need a solid grounding in linear algebra for a start. If you had done some of the basics there you would not be assuming QM needs extra dimensions.
Superposition is nothing to do with extra dimensions either.

I suggest you read some of the detailed responses to your questions.
Then I suggest you follow up with a decent text book. Also, Leonard Susskind has done some free lectures on YouTube via Stanford University.

Pinball 1970, I would like to ask you a question and I would like you to take a deep breath and to think long and deeply about what I am going to say. Why do you screech as stridently as a virgin who thinks her virginity is being violated or a religious fanatic who is foaming at the mouth because his holy of holies is being invaded, whenever any criticism, even the slightest criticism or shortcoming is pointed out about quantum mechanics? It is really quite amazing! Grow up. Quantum mechanics is far from being the perfect, idealistic system you seem to think it is. It is riddled with inconsistencies, it is illogical and poorly constructed, it is far from being the best solution that is available, it is far from being the most perfect theory devised by man. It frequently overlooks insurmountable inconsistencies and provides esoteric and exotic excuses to make things work. Schrodinger’s equation should have never have been adopted , if logic had held sway, neither should wave-particle duality, have had a place.

The phase velocity v_p of a wave is the speed at which the phase of the wave propagates. For a relativistic wave (such as those associated with a particle), the phase velocity is related to the relationship between energy, momentum, and the wave's frequency and wavelength.

In relativistic physics, the total energy E and momentum p of a particle are related by the energy-momentum relation:

E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4

where:

• E is the total energy of the particle,
• p is the relativistic momentum,
• m is the rest mass of the particle,
• c is the speed of light.

Now, consider a wave that describes a particle with a wave-like behavior or a matter wave. For such a matter wave, the angular frequency omega and wave number k are related to the energy and momentum of the particle via:
omega = E and k = p/hbar
where hbar is the reduced Planck's constant.
The phase velocity v_p is given by:
V_p = k/omega
Substituting the expressions for omega and k:
v_p = E/p
using the relativistic energy-momentum relation, and substituting E= sqrt p^2c^2+m^2c^4 and
p = hbar x k
simplifying: v_p = sqrtp^2C^2+m^2c^4/p
= v_p = c^2/v
Therefore, the speed of the matter wave v_p is always greater than the speed of c.

Similarly the multiple dimensions required by the Schrodinger wave-function are not orthogonal to our Universe. They are weird dimensions into which we can’t enter and cannot describe.

 

[DaveC426913]

he is saying the photon may be thought of as a point particle but its area of influence is represented by its wave-length, which as I had stated before is too huge when compared to the atom's size, to fit the observed properties and outcomes.

Why, exactly, do you think it's "too huge"? Too huge to do what? You have never explained why this is a problem for you.


Visible light with a wavelength of 600nm has a frequency of 4THz. Traveling at c, it takes all of 2 femtoseconds for its entire length to interact with a particle. Interactions do not happen instantaneously; if they did you would have an energy transfer rate of infinity (or more accurately 1/infinity)

Would you argue ocean waves that span 100 metres from crest to crest are somehow "too huge" to interact with a child's toy boat? You you expect the boat will be unaffected by the passage - or impact - of ocean waves?



So again: what exactly is your difficulty?

 

[quant]

Why, exactly, do you think it's "too huge"? Too huge to do what? You have never explained why this is a problem for you.


Visible light with a wavelength of 600nm has a frequency of 4THz. Traveling at c, it takes all of 2 femtoseconds for its entire length to interact with a particle. Interactions do not happen instantaneously; if they did you would have an energy transfer rate of infinity (or more accurately 1/infinity)

Would you argue ocean waves that span 100 metres from crest to crest are somehow "too huge" to interact with a child's toy boat? You you expect the boat will be unaffected by the passage - or impact - of ocean waves?



So again: what exactly is your difficulty?

Am I prescient, I guessed it would be this character running interference, with his dull witted remarks. No more replies to him.

 

[DaveC426913]

Am I prescient, I guessed it would be this character running interference, with his dull witted remarks. No more replies to him.

And yet here you are, replying.

You haven't explained why you have a problem with a wavelength interacting with a particle. I've given examples and numbers why it should cause no trouble. It's at the core of your criticism but you haven't explained it.

Your silence is your response.

 

[James R]

Do you understand that something orthogonal to something else is not another dimension (?) it is just at right angles to it.

"Orthogonal" and "just at right angles to it" mean the same thing when we're talking about spatial dimensions.

People have been trying to describe extra dimensions for the past hundred years ever since Brane (membrane) and string theory was introduced.

They were describing them long before that. Try googling "tesseract" to learn about the "fourth dimension". The postulated extra dimensions of string theory are similar to the abstract fourth spatial dimension.

If you could describe to me a single extra dimension, I won't have a problem with what you are saying. Take your time.

It'll be far quicker if you get yourself up to speed by googling "tesseract" or "hypersphere" or something like that. Or even just "the fourth dimension". Stick to science sites, though. Don't get dragged into crystal power and New Age nonsense.

 

[James R]

In Christopher Foot’s Atomic Physics (2nd edition), the recoil process during photon emission is explained in terms of momentum conservation. The photon carries momentum, which results in a recoil of the entire atom (mainly the nucleus). While the electron’s wave function changes due to the energy transition, the recoil does not directly affect the wave function itself, except in subtle ways, the energy of the wave-function itself may change.

Is it Foot who claims that the recoil does not directly affect the wavefunction, or you? And to clarify: are you talking about the photon wavefunction, the atomic wave function, or the wavefunction for the combined system?

HOWEVER, in light of new evidence that the electron emits photons (in this case) at the rate of 500 x 10^12 per second. (n.b. Look up the new optical atomic clocks). For instance if the given 500 THz photon has an energy in electron volts of 6.87 x 10^-19 ev, If this energy is multiplied by 500 x 10^12 = 1.034 x 10^ 15eV ( 1.6 x 10^-4 J) . Enough to completely destroy the atom, especially if, as observation shows, such irradiation can continue for extended periods. Take events in the solar system involving conditions of continuous irradiation.

Typically, atoms emit light by spontaneous emission. The emitted photons go off in all directions, with no particular preferred direction. If the atom is continuously absorbing energy and emitting photons, the velocity gained from the recoil by the atom will be zero, on average.

Conclusion, the present theory must be wrong, not only wrong but irrevocably wrong!

If a single atom is going to somehow emit 500000 billion photons, there must be an energy input from somewhere else to "power" the emission. A single atom certainly isn't going to "store up" the equivalent of 500000 billion photon energies, and this is not what any theory claims that it does.

Maybe you've disproved your own idea of what goes on here, but you haven't shown that any theory that physicists use is wrong, yet.

Going on to photon size: Here is what D J Griffiths has to say in his ‘Introduction to Electrodynamics: "The photon is often described as a point particle with no intrinsic size. Its energy and momentum are related to its frequency and wavelength, but these properties do not imply the photon has a well defined spatial extent in the traditional sense. Instead, the photon’s behaviour is governed by its wave-function, and the wave-length determines the spatial extent of the electromagnetic wave associated with the photon. “

Spot on. This is one reason why Griffiths is used a standard text in many physics courses.

Do you now accept that the "size" of a photon has nothing to do with its wavelength? I've told you. Griffiths has told you. Other members of sciforums have told you. Are you convinced, yet? If not, why not?

I guess no-one did the calculations to show that the size difference was so great 178 million times for the electron, which (He who should not be named) has disparaged so much or 36,000 times approximately the size of the atom, in either case an impossible situation!

What "size" are you referring to now? If Griffiths is right, then the photon has no intrinsic size. In that case, your 178 million times becomes literally an infinite number of times. Do you think that Griffiths has inadvertently helped your case, then, by exposing a fatal flaw in quantum physics? Or do you think you could be barking up the wrong tree?

That is a wonderful explanation, one that, if true, or rather, accurate, it would be accepted by everyone and there would be nothing to worry about, would there? The problem is it is not accurate, light according to quantum mechanics does not travel as a wave it travels as a wave-function.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make between "wave" and "wave function". The latter is a just a mathematical description of the former, is it not?

In the context of the Copenhagen interpretation, the wave function is seen as a mathematical description of the system's potentialities, or possible states, prior to measurement.

Not just in the Copenhagen interpretation. Also in the Many Worlds interpretation and in other interpretations. But okay.

According to this view, light (or any quantum system) can be thought of as existing in a superposition of states as it propagates from Point A to Point B.

Superposition is not necessary in this case. Light of a single wavelength can be described as a single wave a lot of the time. There is no difference in the maths between the quantum wave description and the classical wave description for light, except in terms of the "interpretation" attached to what it is a wave of.

This means that, while the photon is traveling and interacting with the environment, it doesn't have a definite, classical trajectory or precise properties until it is measured. Does light exist or is it real when in such a state?

There's no way to know. Nobody can know that some light exists, until they detect it somehow. Detection requires that the light interact with something.

 

[exchemist]

Pinball 1970, I would like to ask you a question and I would like you to take a deep breath and to think long and deeply about what I am going to say. Why do you screech as stridently as a virgin who thinks her virginity is being violated or a religious fanatic who is foaming at the mouth because his holy of holies is being invaded, whenever any criticism, even the slightest criticism or shortcoming is pointed out about quantum mechanics? It is really quite amazing! Grow up. Quantum mechanics is far from being the perfect, idealistic system you seem to think it is. It is riddled with inconsistencies, it is illogical and poorly constructed, it is far from being the best solution that is available, it is far from being the most perfect theory devised by man. It frequently overlooks insurmountable inconsistencies and provides esoteric and exotic excuses to make things work. Schrodinger’s equation should have never have been adopted , if logic had held sway, neither should wave-particle duality, have had a place.

The phase velocity v_p of a wave is the speed at which the phase of the wave propagates. For a relativistic wave (such as those associated with a particle), the phase velocity is related to the relationship between energy, momentum, and the wave's frequency and wavelength.

In relativistic physics, the total energy E and momentum p of a particle are related by the energy-momentum relation:

E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4

where:

• E is the total energy of the particle,
• p is the relativistic momentum,
• m is the rest mass of the particle,
• c is the speed of light.

Now, consider a wave that describes a particle with a wave-like behavior or a matter wave. For such a matter wave, the angular frequency omega and wave number k are related to the energy and momentum of the particle via:
omega = E and k = p/hbar
where hbar is the reduced Planck's constant.
The phase velocity v_p is given by:
V_p = k/omega
Substituting the expressions for omega and k:
v_p = E/p
using the relativistic energy-momentum relation, and substituting E= sqrt p^2c^2+m^2c^4 and
p = hbar x k
simplifying: v_p = sqrtp^2C^2+m^2c^4/p
= v_p = c^2/v
Therefore, the speed of the matter wave v_p is always greater than the speed of c.

Similarly the multiple dimensions required by the Schrodinger wave-function are not orthogonal to our Universe. They are weird dimensions into which we can’t enter and cannot describe.

Some very strange algebra here. And some equally strange physics.

The energy, E, of a wave depends on the square of both frequency and amplitude, the latter of which appears nowhere here. So it is hard to see where ω = E comes from. For a photon, E = hν, or (h/2π)ω, but even if this is what is meant, a massive particle like an electron is not a photon and Planck's formula does not apply to it.

The phase velocity, vp = ω/k, not k/ω.

So it seems a bit bizarre to state that phase velocity, vp = E/p.

You can't simplify Einstein's energy-momentum relation by assuming p=mv and therefore m can be replaced by p/v. That is a classical Newtonian expression for momentum which does not apply here.

But if you nevertheless do that, what you get is: E² = p²c² + p²c⁴/v² = p²c²( 1 + c²/v²) and hence E = pc√(1 +c²/v²) .

And even if you then further (very dubiously) say that vp = E/p, you get
vp = c√(1 + c²/v²), not c²/v.

So this looks to me like rather a mess, even on its own terms.

But in fact, quite aside from all the above, there seems to be a basic misconception which is to think that a QM entity behaves like a classical wave. It does not. It has waveLIKE character, which is a different thing. Schrödinger's equation is not a true wave equation, because it has only a 1st time derivative, whereas a true wave equation has 2nd derivatives of both spatial coordinates and time.

You cannot hope to do quantum theory using just classical wave formulae, even if you get them right. You need to do the maths of QM. That is why we have, er, the maths of QM.

 

[Pinball1970]

Going on to photon size: Here is what D J Griffiths has to say in his ‘Introduction to Electrodynamics

What does he say about dimensions in relation to Schrodinger's equation?

 

[Pinball1970]

I think Quant has fun away

 

[exchemist]

I think Quant has fun away

Yes it seems so. It must have finally got through to him that nobody here is dumb enough to think his attempted criticisms have any merit.

He seems to be what one might describe asa an "entry level" relativity crank. Most of the (numerous) relativity cranks one comes across on these forums have at least got their heads round part of the theory. But he understands none of it. As for the QM stuff, which I understand better than I do relativity....well....he's an idiot [shrug]. As I pointed out earlier, his particular distinguishing feature as a crank is the way he gets even his facts wrong.

What's funny is that he is so delusional about his own abilities that he has actually written more than one book about his own ideas on physics. I do wonder if, being Indian*, he may have some kind of alternative "Eastern" mystical woo to offer. With the rise of Indian nationalism under Modi, quite a few cranks have popped up with a chip on their shoulders about "western" science and a desire to replace it with a home-grown alternative. Inferiority complex, basically. A pity too, when one bears in mind the contribution of people like Bose to actual physics!

* I base that on the forward he says he has in one of his books from someone called Srinivasan, who he claims was an official with the Indian atomic energy authority.