TENDULKAR’S MONKEY

Those with a background in Physics might expect a discussion along the lines of the famous  Maxwell’sDemon thought experiment. Those whose knowledge of  Physics transcends the 19th century may even be reminded of Schrödinger’s Cats or the even Schrödinger’sKitten. This posting has nothing to do with felines or demons of any kind, real or imaginary. Or even simians, notwithstanding the reference to a simian in the title. We shall not go into, howsoever briefly, whether Maxwell’s thought experiment involving the aforementioned Demon does indeed violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as some doubt (Leo Szilard, one of the fathers of the atom bomb, did). What beats me is why a demon, even allowing for all his demoniacal energy and bent mind (surely you do know that Satan was lasciviously peeping Adam and Eve going about their apple business – some might even say monkey business) would want to sit inside a sealed box opening and shutting an imaginary door for “hot” or “cold” molecules beats me. I could think of hundreds of better things to do inside a sealed box or outside of it, each one a lot more interesting than looking at molecules to decide their state of hotness. Like looking up the Page three babes and estimating their hotness, an infinitely more pleasurable and useful occupation than counting hot and cold molecules.

The state of the fine feline friend in the later thought experiment - a blatant and unashamed knock-off of the Demon experiment, if I may say so – inside of a sealed dark box leaves me cold. Does it make any difference to the world if the cat is alive or dead or is simultaneously both dead and alive? I gather that the last named option is the accepted wisdom of 20^thcentury Quantum Physics. While this might strike many as a weird assertion, Iam personally aware of many people who are both dead and alive at the same time– sort of walking dead. So a similarly weird behaviour in a cat does not surprise me. Suffice it to leave it at that noting merely that Schrödinger or anyone else does not specify what type of a cat it is: Siamese, Persian or alley or even feral. I suspect that therein lies the solution to the apparent paradox.All cats are insolent and are bound to look askance at the world of humans but some more than others, and therefore them playing dead is not at all  far fetched as it might at first seem.. Some breeds more so than others. I shall close this line of discussion with a firm reaffirmation of my dislike of all cats except the cool ones and regrettably no self-respecting jazz musician is called a cool cat anymore.

What has Tendulkar got to do with a monkey, I hear you ask.The former uses a bat and the latter is indifferent to bats – the flying variety I mean, although with sufficient training and inducement they (the monkeys, not the bats) may be persuaded to wield the willow. With considerably more skill and to far greater effect, I may add, than many of our cricketers.There is an invisible monkey on Tendulkar’s shoulders. No one can see it. But everyone is talking about it. In fact every one is only talking about it. But equally vehemently they deny the existence of a monkey. Much like HarbhajanSingh did, so ably supported by the aforesaid Tendulkar himself. This monkey,the one that didn’t exist in Harbhajan’s story, not the one which is not onTendulkar’s shoulders, was the subject of much inquiry and deep research even by simian standards and we all know that monkeys are studied a lot by lots and lots of scientists. With breathtaking brilliance, recalling John Bell’s fantastic explanation for the Schrödinger’s Cat,  Harbhajan postulated that the Punjabi “ma-ki”  became Symonds’ “monkey”. Tendulkar’s confirmation of this postulate beat the pants off Alain Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’stheorem - eat your heart out, Alain, and wipe your substantial mustache while you are at it. All done and dusted and apparent conflicts explained.

 Until Tendulkar went to Australiarecently when the Australian scribes took it up again. Poor fellows, they don’t have much to do once they have reported on the briefness of the  bikinis at Bondi beach and the indiscretions of their sportsmen and politicians. After all there’s only so much you can say about a very brief sliver of cloth which seeks to tantalize even as it tries to cover the modesty  of the wearer.Howsoever exciting this line of thought, we must drop it and get back to our main narrative about the monkey which is not on Tendulkar’s shoulders.

Is there a monkey (a general existential question)? Is there a monkey on his shoulders (a Schrodingerian paradox type of question)? If yes,what is it doing (or not doing?) If no, what is it not doing?  Quantum Physics apparently tells us that if you see the monkey you cant know what it has been up to and if you knew what it was doing, you cant see  where it is. Or something like that. And then some go on to say there are   infinity of Tendulkars and infinity of monkey sand infinity of Tendulkars with / without monkeys on their shoulders. This last line of thought says that the act of our “seeing” actually freezes the monkey on the shoulders (Tendulkar’s frozen shoulder had nothing to do with anyone seeing it, it froze on its own; like mine did except that I can’t bat or bowl or open gates for monkeys). A kind of “its all in the eyes of the beholder”sort of situation.

Ma-ki or monkey therefore depends on the beholder or, more accurately, the listener.

The apparent paradox solved.

That only leaves the other monkey – the one not on Tendulkar’sshoulders.

It has once again failed to get off his shoulders (if it was there in the first place)