User talk:Afshar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Permission for images 2 Reverted changes to your user page 3 Reverting your Double-slit experiment edit 4 Thanks! 5 Wave-particle duality 6 My removal of categories from your user page 7 Reply 8 reply 9 Do not use sockpuppets! 10 Please stop. 11 Your comments 12 Article Incompletness of quantum physics could use some help 13 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (2nd nomination) 14 Wikipedia: page in progress 15 Banning a certain user 16 Your revert at wave-particle duality 17 I can't help it if Danko answers 18 Dispute resolution 19 Eequor no longer around 20 A note 21 Lies again? 22 Half Silvered Mirrors 23 Georgiev's thesis

[edit] Permission for images

Do you have an image you can release under the [GFDL] of the setup of your experiment that looks like the setup here? If not, I can make something that looks similiar in The Gimp on Wednesday or Thursday. I think this page will work a lot better with pictures, but we can't just steal stuff from web pages here on the Wikipedia.

By the way, you are being very civilized about some of the conflicts. I have minimized the information on multiple pages, since it was multiple copies of the same thing; things like that means it's time to merge on the Wikipedia. The list is on Talk:Afshar experiment. The only page where I completely removed any reference to your experiment is on Niels Bohr, for the same reason we don't say on the Isaac Newton page "Einstein's special theory of relativity violates Newtonian mechanics at high velocities" Samboy 11:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted changes to your user page

User:Lumidek added the following to your user page:

Visibility: zero or one?

Harvard professors of physics, Bertrand Halperin and Lubos Motl, argue that the contrast (i.e. visibility) with which the wave properties of light are observed in Afshar's experiment converges to zero as the wire grid becomes thin simply because only a very tiny fraction of the photons are used to deduce whether the interference exists or not:

In order to argue that there is any interference, the effects of the wires must first be seen. This effect is very small even if the wires are placed at the interference maxima, and the visibility is therefore also small. Shahriar Afshar, on the other hand, argues that the visibility is close to 100 percent. Effectively, he uses one set of photons to measure the "which way information", and another, tiny set of photons to study "interference", which is not correct. According to Halperin and Motl, the Principle of Complementarity, as well as all other important postulates of quantum mechanics, are preserved. The results of this experiment agree with quantum mechanics and all of its mainstream interpretations; in fact, classical electromagnetism is sufficient to explain the observations, they say.

Note: I haven't removed this addition to the Afshar experiment page, just the user page (this information, IMHO, certainly belongs there).

I have removed this because I feel that it isn't very polite to edit user's pages without their permission. This is not a universal sentiment here; our esteemed founder, User:Jimbo_Wales feels differently, for example. If Afshar wants this, he can revert my changes. Or, heck, Lumidek can too; I'm not going to get in a revert war over this. Samboy 14:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting your Double-slit experiment edit

I have reverted your last edit in the Double-slit experiment article [1] because of the “poop” added in the Conditions for interference section, not because of restoring the Shahriar Afshar's experiment section removed by 143.50.61.66 [2] which I have restored now, without the poop. Rafał Pocztarski 17:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Professor Afshar, Just wanted to say thanks for your work on the article about Afshar experiment -- it's a great read, and I appreciate all the hard work you've put into it. Makes it more authoritative and all to be coming straight from the horse's mouth, too. Cheers, Schmiddy 01:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wave-particle duality

Hello,

As you can imagine, I do not support the deletion of the section I wrote. Yout comments are welcomed on the talk page.

Cdang|write me 11:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cdang, please REMOVE the analogy you have suggested. The photon is not like a whirlpool and I do not have the time right now to explain how the wave-particle duality can be popularized. But I promise to write something when I get the time. In the meantime I would appreciate if you place your analogy back HERE, so the uninitiated don't get more confused. Thanks! --Afshar 00:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

The other analogy has been removed. I would love if you could write your popularized version. Both this and phonon need some down-to-earthing... Everyone says "these things are quantum weirdness! They are just math and are not meant to be understood!" But I have a feeling that they can be explained better than they currently are. - Omegatron 02:46, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My removal of categories from your user page

I hope you don't mind that I removed those three categories from your user page. As I explained in my edit summary, those categories are for grouping articles but user pages aren't really articles in that sense. If you're a prominent researcher then I think it'd be appropriate to have an actual article about you instead, though care would have to be taken to avoid tripping over the Wikipedia:Vanity page policy. Bryan 23:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I've replied on my user page. linas 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reply

I answered on my talk page. In brief: If you look more carefully, you will notice that I did not propose deletion, and that in fact I argued that the article should be kept. Also, I have responded to everything that you have written to me, and in fact, I took silence on your part as tacit admission. Perhaps you should repost your other comments on my talk page, if you beleive I have not replied. linas 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not use sockpuppets!

Hi,

Based on one of your recent edits, [3], it apears that you are using a sockpuppet or are impersonating User:Physicsmonk. This is more or less frowned upon in Wikipedia, and the use of this to cast double votes or make inappropriate edits might get you banned. linas 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope that User:ehteshami is not one of your sockpuppets! linas 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Linas, You can't call anyone who supports my work a sockpuppet! User:Physicsmonkis certainly not a sockpuppet either, he is the Boston colleague I mentioned in my e-mail. I asked him to set up an account as you had suggested. He told me about the recent events with Monroe requesting a deletion and then you reinstating Monroe's attempt which I mistakenly understood as your own view. Sorry if I got confused on your vote! At any rate, User:Physicsmonk told me that for some reason he could not post his vote on the Wiki deletion page, which is what I did for him by copying and pasting his response to User:Hmonroe into the vote page. As you can see, I have not voted on the deletion issue myself as I deem that not to be ethical. I hope this clarifies the situation. BTW/ I have posted the e-mail I sent you a few days agao but was left unanswered in your talk page. Afshar 21:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop.

Please stop. You are damaging yourself with your behaviour. If you persist, you will only find yourself in deeper trouble. linas 23:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Linas, the IP you mentioned belongs to the colleague User:Physicsmonk with whom I worked and used his computer last year before I had set up my own Wiki account. After my recent discussions with you I asked him to obtain an account as well, which is exactly what he has done. He retracted the anonymous vote after he realized I had posted his vote for him (see below for the reason). Please stop these unsubstantiated remarks. Frankly, I am starting to think that Hunter Monroe is in fact your sockpuppet?! Afshar 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments

Hi Afshar, responding to your comments on my talk page. It's not really helpful to try to argue the correctness of your ideas on Wikipedia. It's not the right forum to be trying to promote your own ideas. As you can see from the "votes for deletion" page, a number of those voting to keep were convinced after reading the article that the results themselves are something new and unexpected, disproving quantum mechanics. Surely you would agree that the article is misleading if it gives this impression. As a side note, I have enough understanding of quantum mechanics myself that I'm not likely to be convinced by your arguments. --Reuben 18:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Afshar, please stop haunting the article about your own claims. It's inappropriate. And I have no need to debate you. It's irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Reuben 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Afshar, I appreciate your note on my talk page expressing the willingness to avoid directly editing the article. Thanks, I think that will help a lot. --Reuben 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite flattered, but I'll have to decline. I have already come to my own conclusions about the correctness of your interpretation, so I'm probably not the best candidate. --Reuben 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

About removing the AFD tag from Afshar experiment. Sorry to give you the impression that I am in control of anything. I am not an admin. I believe an admin has to count the votes, deal with the page accordingly, remove tag, archive disscussion, whatever. I left a note on the AfD page, maybe that will remind someone. Don't forget wikipedia ia all amateurs, a certain slack is to be expected. I suppose a message to somewhere on the Community Portal page maybe in order, I'm not exactly sure to whom. Best wishes. GangofOne 23:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Incompletness of quantum physics could use some help

Dear Prof. Afshar,

The article Incompletness of quantum physics could use some help.

In particular it would be helful if the article could be extended to report on the following published work:

• Carlo Rovelli. "Relational quantum mechanics" International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35 1637-1678. 1996.
• Federico Laudisa and Carlo Rovelli. "Relational Quantum Mechanic" The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition).

The results in Incompletness of quantum physics are important in computer science. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Workshop#The_use_of_indeterminacy and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Workshop#Aggressive_autobiographical_editing.

Thanks,

Carl

--Carl Hewitt 01:10 22 January 2006 (PST)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (2nd nomination)

May I respectfully suggest that you please moderate your tone on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (2nd nomination). Remarks like "spiteful non-entity" to Danko certainly count as a personal attack. Also, it does not help to say "Please check the facts before you make erroneous statements." to Stifle, after both Linas and I have already challenged him. I understand your frustration that Afshar experiment got nominated for deletion again, but it is not a big deal. I've been around for long enough to know that the article won't be deleted, but your vociferous defense is counterproductive. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. But don't you think something is fundamentally wrong with a system where a known crackpot (or worse, an ill-wisher) can attack and bring chaos to serious topics of which he knows nothing? FYI/Danko is a Pharmacology student in Japan. If you look at my weblog, you would realize that for months in 2005 I patiently tired to explain the basics to him, but he kept changing his story after every error was exposed. I'm done talking and if he is not stopped I'm done with Wikipedia. I do not have time to constantly monitor what goes on here.--Afshar 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem. However, it is very hard to resolve this issue without damaging the openness of Wikipedia and the ease with which people can edit it, and the latter is essential to Wikipedia's success. The downside is that continuous monitoring is needed. There are some ways to stop disruptive editors, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and, for extreme cases, Wikipedia:Blocking, but editors are given quite a bit of leeway here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, there is also relevent discussion at Wikipedia:Stable versions to designate "known-good" article versions, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience about general problems of crank edits. linas 19:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear S. Afshar I have a suggestion for you: after a brief discussion with linas and after reading and reading again your WP page I accepted the fact that the first part presenting the experiment is mot so bad that I expected. Perhaps indeed the best choice would be that after this first section you write some theoretical explanations justifying your thought. This part should clearly precise that this is Your point of view (at least in one sentence at the beginning). At the end of the article the serie of links must be presented as other potential interpretations of your results. If you think that this is a good idea let me know Drezet 24 january 2006

As discussed I modified my point of view on the deletion page regards Drezet 24 january 2006

By the way I dont have a copy of your Proc. SPIE 2005 could you send me a copy by email? Drezet 25 january 2006

[edit] Wikipedia: page in progress

Dear Pr.Afshar, before to continue I would like to know if you realized your experiment only with single photon and if yes how. regards Drezet 26 january 2006

I have a picture with V=1 too if you wish I will indeed include it. Drezet 31 january 2006

• That would be better.-- Afshar 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banning a certain user

About your email about your problems with Certain User, if you can't work it out with him, the next step may be requesting mediation, or last step, Request for Arbitration. Look a Village Pump for what to do. Look at some of the current csses to se how it works. Let me mention though that there is a rule against legal threats against other users; that would not be favorable to you. Also, a content dispute, per se, is not a wiki-crime, there has to be breaking of other rules. Accusations of fraud may be "attacking a user". May I suggest keeping your responses on the scientific level, his attacks are scientifically based, he claims. Does he have credibility that you need worry about his charges? (I haven't followed the dialog closely, so I don't have an opinion at the moment.) Good luck GangofOne 07:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He has absolutely no credibility whatsoever with anyone. However as you may know fraud is the number one killer of career in academia, and even a mention of it regarding an academic is ruinous. I will not tolerate this. -- Afshar 08:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Look into WP:DR. Or legal action, I suppose, if you think you have a case. Pfalstad 15:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

well I think that article should be merged or at least renamed. you take criticisms of it too personally with it called "your name's experiment" -- Astrokey44|talk 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Astrokey44, As you can see, the legitimate scientific debate in the form of papers etc. have been sited properly on the page. However, Danko (who is NOT a physicist) has turned a scientific debate to personal attacks after every physicist he interacted with dismissed him outright. Wouldn't you defend yourself if you were accused of a crime like fraud? What would you do if you were in my position? -- Prof. Afshar 16:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think if I were you I would merge the page to somewhere else, or rename it, and not include your name in the title! its just inviting criticism to have an article like that - sort of like writing your own bio -- Astrokey44|talk 11:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, Ashibaka has asked me to mediate in your dispute with Danko Georgiev MD. If you feel that you have a case in law and wish to pursue it, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the provisions of the legal-threats policy until the case has concluded its course. If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, you must cease all legal threats. This is hardline because we do not wish to see Wikipedians sueing each other whilst squabbling on talk pages. Fine, I hope you understand that. If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, we shall have to find a resolution to your argument with Danko Georgiev MD (I shall be posting a message to him too). As Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise, resolution is necessary. Unfortunately. the more you argue, the mor likely you are to get angry, make personal comments and be blocked from editing yourself. Now, I imagine that you wish not to enter into legal process, to seek resolution and to continue to edit Wikipedia. Please let me know, if you are willing to do this. — Gareth Hughes 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, I have written to Danko with the conclusion that unsubstantiated claims have no place on Wikipedia (you can see my reasoning on his talk page). I hope that he sees that such an argument is pointless here. It would probably be best if you refrained from making personal comments to or about Danko, which may simply reignite the issue. I advise you to continue to be circumspect about the article, realising the complications that arise from editing something that is so personally associated with you. I hope that Danko will agree that Wikipeida is not a forum for his claims. However, if he insists on continuing to make them, we may have to refer the issue to the Arbitration committee, who have greater scope than I in enforcing solutions to disputes. — Gareth Hughes 11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert at wave-particle duality

I put up a comment about your revert on the talk page. Fresheneesz 10:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I can't help it if Danko answers

Dear Professor Afshar I can perfectly understand your irritation at Danko, he also gets on my nerves. His arguments are wrong, his understanding of physics is poor and he is rather paranoid to boot. But I can't help it if he answers to my posts!

On the other hand I think I provided some important insight as to understanding why the results of your experiments are in perfect agreement with QM under any interpretation. I hold it that the clue to a clear understanding of the whole thing is Huygens principle, that shows that in only one pinhole is open, in the presence of the grid some amount (small in square amplitude, not so small in amplitude) of light reaches the image of the *other one*. Recovery of 100% when both pinholes are open is through positive interference between that light and what now arrives from the "right" pinhole. This means in particular that this is not an unambiguous "welcher weg" situation. I submit that an amplitude coming from the "wrong pinhole", even if its effect is precisely to *destroy* the effect of part (diffracted part as opposed to direct part) of what comes from the first one, is nevertheless "real", and in the same sense that in a dark fringe amplitude of opposite signs coming from both holes "exist" though they cancel each other. Consider a simple minded Young slits experiement. Take a a point near, but not exactly at the center of a dark fringe. The small amount of light that does get there, where does it come from? From both holes at the same time, with amplitudes that are almost but not quite opposite. By extension this is also true at the exact center of the fringe. Saying that nothing gets there is wrong. Amplitude come there from both holes but they exactly cancel. So the cancellation of the 6% loss in your experiement when both holes are open does not mean that the first hole does not scatter, but that the second one scatters the opposite amplitude. This is a different statement, and it shows that one cannot describe the process as "unambiguous welcher weg".

Now I developed my arguments in the posts you moved. Do you consider my interventions as unsuitable "per se" in the discussion page of your experiment, or only usuitabe because of Danko's comments? Do you mind if I copy them (just mine, not Danko's) and put them back?

I dont want to antagonize you, nor do I want to encourage Danko, but I think my analyssis is important and I'd like to put it back in connection with your article, not just in my personal page! Alfredr 22:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

I have been away for a few days, and so have only just received your messages. I understand your grievances over the editing of Afshar experiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and I understand that the nature of debate over the article has become personalised against you. Such ad hominem arguments should be roundly censured under Wikipedia policy, but it seems inevitable that your personal involvement editing the article can lead to the boundary between the article and person becoming blurred. I also removed the semi-protection notices you put up on your user page and user-talk page. I did this because the template is a statement of fact rather than a request, and I don't believe the pages are under semi-protection. It is usual only to use semi-protection if vandalism or dispute needs to be calmed. Occassional vandalism is usually met with vigilant reversions. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. — Gareth Hughes 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eequor no longer around

Hi - I saw your edit at User_talk:Eequor. She's been gone since last February, and as far as I can tell is not coming back. I'm curious how you missed this notice that's at the bottom of her talk page:

User:Eequor has made no edits since February 16, 2006 and may be unlikely to respondify any messages left here.

Did you make this edit with Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser or something? I've added notices like this to several users' pages and folks occasionally still add new talk threads. I'd like to figure out how this happens. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note

I apologise, but I am entirely unable to address your concerns on Afshar experiment or related articles, unless they involve something that specifically requires admin privelages. I don't have the scientific knowledge needed to address this article, as I'm not even done with high school yet. Please do not send me further notices about conflicts in this article unless said conflicts imply a punishable offense. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lies again?

Danko, again you intend to use lies to harm my reputation. You say the article "originally was intended as advertisement of Afshar by Afshar." I did not start the “Afshar experiment” page, someone else did, and you know that. Your complete lack of expertise (announced by Prof. Unruh and others) and personal ill-wish towards me have been documented by a number of Wiki admins including Gareth Hughes. Here's a reminder from your previous malintents:

"Its conclusion is clear: that your claims that Afshar falsified results (and all other claims that cannot be substantiated by verifiable sources) should cease. In my conversations with Afshar, he has been willing to do all that's possible to stay within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Are you willing to cease from unsubstantiated claims? Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"

to which you replied:

"...I will restrain myself for posting comments on the Talk page of Afshar's article...therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued... Danko Georgiev MD 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC) "

Please stick to your promise, and take your unsubstabtiated "arguments" and claims to a blog or some other site other than Wikipedia, or face the consequences of your repeated personal attacks.-- Prof. Afshar 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, calm down. I will not post on the talk page of your pet article, and you have noticed my absence for quite a long period - I have been focused on molecular biology, not physics. I was brough to your article by irrelevant to your study search, and I was curious to find out that some people have editted the main article! So I wanted to get their replies WHY they have editted the main article. Basicly their critique seens to approach the questions that I have asked you many times, and if you were a little bit more communicative you should notice that if you look the problem from the density matrix perspective you will see your error and you better withdraw your work. It is your own choice so I am not the person who will be cause for your failure. My advice is to accept your error in more civilized way and go ahead with doing some serious physics. I have not touched the main article, and I will not touch also the disussion section. I will use the talk pages of the registered users. I hope this will satisfy your quest. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 07:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question: do you have some useful edits in Wikipedia except for promoting your interpretation of complementarity? A friendly advice is that you contribute something else that you know, but is NOT for self-promotion. Have you thought of doing something useful for others without putting your name behind? For example you can try editing on some topic well-known in physics but not covered in Wikipedia. Danko Georgiev MD 07:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Half Silvered Mirrors

Excuse my ignorance, but how do half silvered mirrors work? Surely if you fire a stream of photons at a half silvered mirror, the photon must "choose" one of two paths to take. Does the path taken depend in microscopic deviations of the incident vector and position, or is it independent of this? In otherwords, is it a quantum effect or not? Dndn1011 00:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgiev's thesis

Dear Afshar, I don't know whether you realize or not, but my work is much more than you expect right now. One of the striking things, that I also bust Unruh's reasoning and show he is wrong. Indeed I agree with you on all those things that your opponents disagree - yes, the interference is there. Alas, the which way is completely erased even IF there is no grid. This is your overlook, and you really had the chance to contribute substantially to the theory of lens action. However you have missed already this opportunity, because my paper clarifies all this. Here is how somebody who called me ignorant not long ago, now has changed his position completely (surprizingly for me).

"Danko's argument is extremely interesting. The axiomatic definition of V is no longer the same thing as an emperical definition of 'V' as might have otherwise been assumed. One can not math consistently say A and B. One must say A or B. And the argument for math consistency is an extremely powerful one. The prinicple requires (correction: it imposes) a limit on the inferential meaning of the "which way" observable, ie. in spite of the observable, not because of it. While the observables originally "forced" the principle into play it is now the principle which "forces" the observables into question (correction: into play). Which is almost a relief. Bohr's interpretational crutch, "there is no quantum world" is possibly incorrect. There is a lot more to be explored in relation to this question. --Carl A Looper 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)"