Phew! Yet another fiasco and it was yet another bad power-play!. The week has yet again started sober,sombre and with a snigger. But, amidst all these fabulously decorated blue light there was that little purple patch that I could see. And those were my thoughts again ;). There have been one too many occasions wherein in have run out of luck and I'm sure that each one of you would have had a similar experience, perhaps, some of you would have even had a counter-experience. All said and done, there's that lonely ray of quibble that always lies unanswered- and thats the "distribution of luck in our lives".

So, here I am- with another equally crappy thoughts pouring out yet another fabulously dumb thesis, wherein I try to explain how exactly luck plays in our lives and why is it that we are not able to predict the "degree of luck" and how are all these related mathematically. And for the uninitiated let me name this thesis as the "Bharath's ambiguous luck-density principle"[BALP in short]

Ok, Now, Let me start with the basis of the entire scenario. The BALP can often be simply explained as the statement that the measurement of luck and effort necessarily perturbs an objects life-path, and vice versa—i.e., BALP is a manifestation of the time-spacial effect.

This explanation can sometimes be misleading in a modern context, because it makes it seem that the obstructions are somehow conceptually avoidable—and that there are states of the object with definite decorum wherein its luck-density and the destiny function are known , but though the experimental facts as we have today(its almost trivial!) are just not good enough to produce those states. In fact, states with both definite luck-density and destiny-function just do not exist in life's theoretical mathematics, so it is not the measurement equipment that is at fault.

It is also misleading in another way, because sometimes it is a failure to measure the object that produces the (bad)luck. For example, if while traveling on a bike (through Bangalore roads) without a helmet on a busy last Monday of the month and still managing to get away without committing any misdemeanors. Whoa!, yeah- Its more likely that the object was not observed at all, then its luck-density becomes uncertain by a large amount.More so, because it beats all expectations!.

It is misleading in yet another way, because sometimes the measurement can be performed far away. Lets consider the "sans helmet" example and extend it to two objects that are traveling in the same or opposite directions from the decay of policetronuims and it so happens that only one of them is caught!, then the luck density of the two two are opposite. By measuring the luck denstiy of one particle, the luck-density of the other is determined. This case is subtler, because it is impossible to introduce more uncertainties by measuring a distant particle, but it is possible to restrict the uncertainties in different ways, with different statistical properties, depending on what property of the distant object you choose to measure. Now let us try to justify this claim mathematically-

So Eureka!, here we come- Dosnt that tell you that the equation truly converges to the Uncertainty Principle?!.

Lolz!, It actually does!- and thus we can trivially claim that luck and destiny plays a key role in our lives and our life cannot be predicted because of the BALP and because we cannot find the way our luck or destiny behaves.

So, for all those who believe that luck is a key factor, well Long hail- But, be lest assured that your luck will always behave the same way as you want it to..;) [ More so , because their randomness is more random than just random..:P]


PS : I'm extremely sorry for the illegibility in the equations. Thats more so because of blogger's primitive alignment and special symbol usage laws.
You can download the complete proof here.