User talk:Drezet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi,

Can you please move the article Can Bohr's complementarity be tested? to your personal website? While I agree with you that Afshar has made a mistake in his interpretation, I note that WP is not the place for the publication of original research or for the expression of opinions. I will likely nominate this article for VfD sometime soon, for these reasons. linas 15:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have placed a copy of your article at User:Drezet/Afshar so that you don't loose a copy. I do plan to VfD this soon ... linas 17:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Howdy and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know you can sign and date your comments on talk pages (or deletion pages) by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). Feel free to write a note on my talk page if I can help with anything. Thanks again, --Hansnesse 17:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afshar, etal.

I replied on my talk page. As to arguing with Danko, I beleive that the best thing to do is to ignore him; otherwise, the arguments become endless. As to the Afshar article, I beleive that Afshar's interpretation is incorrect. However, the topic is now notable enough that we should keep the article. There will no doubt be young students who will want to understand and learn what the basic idea is, and why the interpretation is incorrect. The task is then to make the article as accurate as possible, and to prevent vandalism by Danko or others. linas 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Aureline, does this mean that you have changed your vote? If so please have it reflected on the AfD voting page. -- Prof. Afshar 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aureline, Thank you for your objectivity. Please change your vote on the AfD page. Your suggestion is similar to Prof. Hewitt's. I will do my best, but it may take some time. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

When you are done editing for the day, please remove the in-use tag. I'd like to make a few minor changes/fixes. Also .. the correct way to tag the article is to stick in the template {{inuse}}. linas 15:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics for Theory Section of Afshar experiment

Dear Drezet, Please bear in mind that the directly observed interference pattern (IP) is a fully visible one (V=1). The IP you have shown has a low visibility (V<1). If you replace it with an IP in which the dark fringes have zero intensity (i.e. V=1), the graphics would be correct. Please let me know what you wish to do. Regards. -- Prof. Afshar 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I still fail to see the significance of observing the IP at the focal plain. This is not what I did (and not very desirable anyways) because by the time the wavefunctions reach the focal plane they have a substantial separation, which leads to very low visibilties at the edges of the Airy disks. (I am sure you know this, at least I expect you to!) It would be more appropriate to drop the talk about the focal plane altogether to prepare the reader's mind in light of the actual experiment, rather than divert it to something entirely unrelated. I suggest you REMOVE this part of the text: "If use a lens to observe the fringes in the back focal plane (F) the angle is given by :sin(\alpha)\simeq tan(\alpha)=x/f\quad where :f\quad is the focal length." and MOVE the IP back to where it was observed (immediately before the light enters the lens). That is the ideal place, as the two wavefunctions have maximal overlap, and a farfield IP is easily observed. For aesthetics, you can flip the IP vertically to make sure the IP pattern profile does not obscure the lens. Please note that the role of the lens is merely to help us gain which way information, nothing else! P.S. Please do not encourage Danko to engage in the discussion, I've had enough of his antics and won't waste my time answering him. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow Thanks!

The description of duality that you wrote got moved to Complementarity (physics). I just spent a few hours trying to clean it up, polishing details, etc. and I think it looks very good now. I also made a redirect from Englert-Greenberger duality to this article, although, perhaps, this material should be moved to that article. Anyway, thanks for this excellent bit of work. linas 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You said:
The title is sufficient to say what I want. Later on I will probably add something on entanglement in the complementartiy section since this an important point for many experiments. Drezet 7 /02/2006
A few quick remarks, if I may presume:
  • you can answer here, instead of on my talk page, since I am "watching" this page, and I will notice when you respond.
  • It looks like you are having trouble with your signature. Just use four tilde's to sign, like so: ~~~~
  • When adding new content, think about what its "correct" title should really be. If the topic is known as "Englert-Greenberger duality" then that should be the main title, and not "complementarity (physics)". As an encyclopedia, topics should be packaged under thier own names, in "bite-size" pieces; if multiple topics are related, then a single sentance in one article, refereing to the other article, is often enough to point out the relationship.
Again, thanks linas 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Danko Georgiev

Dear Drezet, I wish to ban Danko Georgiev from Wikipedia for his repeated accusations of Fraud to me regarding my experiment [1] on the talk pages. My experimental results were verified by faculty from Harvard and other schools. I will not allow this idiot to ruin my reputation. He must be repudiated by the Wikipedia community. Any help you can offer in this regard would be appreciated.-- Afshar 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Afshardrezet3.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Afshardrezet3.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Afshar drezet.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Afshar drezet.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Aureliendrezet2.png

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Aureliendrezet2.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by --Michael C. Price on Afshar experiment page

  • Dear Aurelien, --Michael C. Price insists on using unsubstantiated claims without proper references on the article page. Regardless of the nature of his claims, I have requested that he does so, but instead he has produced at best irrelevant quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources. His edit follows:

Though Afshar's work is still the subject of ongoing interpretation and discussion, a significant portion of the scientific community is of the opinion that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity.

Some general criticisms are:

Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle are generally seen in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation. Since the latter is obeyed in Afshar's experiment it is not obvious how complementarity can be violated.[1][2]
The modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference provides a mechanism for understanding the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

As Michael claims, those statments are supposedly "popular views" that preexisted my experiment, and as such must be present in peer-reviewed publication predating my work. All I have asked him to do is to provide such valid ref.s but he has persistently avoided doing so and instead engaged in personal attacks. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to be on Wikipeida constatntly, but I don't. This is turning to oneupmanship, and I don't have time for such antcis. Maybe he would heed your request. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I will be discussing this issue with Michael Price on the article talk page, and would highly appreciate if you could monitor our discussion and interject when you deem fit. I'm afraid it might get a little testy, as Michael has been persistent on personal attacks. Thanks very much for your help. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Englert-Greenberger

Hi Aurelian,

I found your analysis of the Englert-Greenberger duality relation very helpful and have created a page for it (copied from Complementarity (physics)). There are links between it and the Afshar experiment. I took the liberty of expanding some of the mathematical text for clarity for readers less aquainted with QM -- you'd better check it over for accuracy. I hope your research is going well -- it sounds fascinating.

Cheers,

--Michael C. Price talk 13:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/e/User_talk%7EDrezet_6777.html"