Talk:Afshar experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Afshar experiment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
WikiProject Physics
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on December 19, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 January 2006. The result of the discussion was KEEP. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Contents

[edit] Disputed Piece #3

The following point is missing it's counterpoint:

Niels Bohr stated "an adequate tool for a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[11]
  • If the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), how can Bohr's principle of complementarity be violated by the experiment?[13][14][15]

The counterpoint, if I recall, was something like this (somewhat elaborated):

  • The experiment's obedience to the formalism can simply throw into question Bohr's claim that the formalism is an "adequate tool for a complementarity way of description". There is no great logical flaw here. Bohr may be just wrong. Basically, if the formalism is not violated by the experiment, yet complementarity is (if it is), then Bohr's claim is just incorrect.

If this counterpoint is to remain removed then the original point should also be removed as the structure of the ongoing debate section is meant to be, and remains introduced as having a point/counterpoint structure.

--Carl A Looper 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reposted by Sdirrim 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with this, it has been my position since I first entered into this debate. Either there should be both points or neither. I would vote for neither as together they simply cancel eachother out. Dndn1011 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Carl and Dndn1011. Objectivity is served either by removal of the critical quotes, or by addition of the rebuttals to those critiques. From the point of view of Encyclopedic styles, however, it would be best not to have any quotes, and simply cite the ref.s papers, etc for both the critiques and rebuttals. -- Prof. Afshar 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Afshar. For anyone who recalls the origin of this section it was on the insistence of one editor, that certain points be made (in direct conflict with the opinion of other editors) that necessitated, as an alternative solution, the addition of the counterpoints. If the counterpoints are subsequently removed, so too should be the original points. I vote we just remove the whole section. It's hardly representative of the wider debate. (I still very much like the introductory remark) --Carl A Looper 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Originally this section was called 'Critiques' and in order to attempt to make progress in spite of this other editor's obstructions, renamed the section "On Going Debate", and the idea was to present a concise summary of the debate within it. This never went entirely to plan, as we can see, because it still remained an unbalanced section. Dndn1011 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Do NOT delete. The segment explicitly states that Bohr says the PC is tight to mathematial formalism. See my comment below on Afshar view of PC vs. HUR. If Bohr says that one first must disprove the math formalism, you cannot attribute some "wrong interpretation" to Bohr. Bohr is not alive to defend himself, so this quotation is sufficiently explicit. So from this quoation follows that Afshar MUST disprove the formalism, if he does not so, then he don't have rights to claim he has disproved Bohr. Danko Georgiev MD 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not, and cannot, have any opinion in this, as I am neutral. But it does seem (though I am not an expert) that the "counterpoint" does not directly refute Bohr's point, rather, it establishes conditions under which Bohr's claim could be shown to be false. This is a neutral, independent observation, and I support neither side. Sdirrim 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the first statement basically says "Complementarity is an essential part of the formalism, and since the experiement obeys the formalismn, it can't violate complementarity". The second statement says (or should say) that complementarity can be violated by an experiment that otherwise obeys the formalism. The second statement is correct and not the first, because if an experiment was found that showed a violation, the whole of the quantum mechanical formalism is not rendered invalid by it. Bohr simply presented an argument that suggested that because we can never observe complementarity being violated, we never need to face that paradox and have to try to explain it. In short Bohr was saying "there is nothing to see here, lets move on". His basis for this is the idea that what you can't observe does not matter. If you cannot observe a paradox, there is no paradox. Afshar's experiment may in fact show that it is possible to observe the paradox. If this is true, then the formalism is still valid, but only up to a point. It means that it is incomplete because it can not explain the paradox although it can adequately explain most other experimental observations. The first statement by itself is meaningless. It is in effect saying "Because Bohr was right it is impossible for complementarity to be violated." This is not a sensible thing to have in the article, in my opinion. Dndn1011 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BPC vs. HUP

How is the experiment supposed to show that complementarity is wrong without showing that the formalism is wrong?1Z 16:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The formalism may very well be wrong as well, but such is not addressed by the experiment. Complementarity can still fail without the formalism failing. There is nothing in the formalism that requires complementarity be correct. Or to put it another way - if there is, then we need more than Bohr's word for that. --Carl A Looper 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have answered the 'how' question. Complementarity is embodied in the formalism as non-commutivity.1Z 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's one definition of complementarity one could use, and if correct, the principle of complementarity would be redundant. But I think you'll find the experiment addresses Bohr's principle of complementarity - which was not meant to be redundant as far as I can tell. --Carl A Looper 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that a lot of effort has been put into a mathematical definition of complementarity which is very important work, but there are aspects of Bohr's principle which have yet to be defined in mathematical terms - if ever they can. Bohr's principle appears to emerge out of a failure to experimentally reproduce a particular kind of paradox - one implied by quantum theory. It is arguably, in such a failure that Bohr sees the substance of the principle. That there is something about the physical world (rather than the theory per se) that stops us "concluding a paradox". But what was the paradox? For that you need to look at the experiments proposed by Einstein in relation to the quantum theory. What was Einstein hoping to achieve? He was hoping to acheive something akin to what Afshar does acheive. I don't know how this is not so bleeding obvious. That said, we can't rely on Bohr to qualify his principle in response to Afshar's experiment - for obvious reasons. So instead we turn back to the quantum theory (the formalism) for some defense of complementarity. But it's not from the formalism that complementarity can be re-derived. It comes out of left field, as a postulate if you like - (supposedly logical) - that the physical world does not permit a high contrast paradox such as the one Afshar's experiment (and the formalism) might otherwise imply. --Carl A Looper 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The non-commutation used in the unitary time evolution using the Schrödinger equation and the Hamiltonian is the result of the QM formalism (Fourier transforms) and embodied in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) relations which are NOT the same as Bohr's Principle of Complementarity BPC. Fromulation of BPC was derived by a number of investigators such as Greenberger and Yasin, Englert and others in different ways (some using HUP, and some avoiding it completely), and is embodied in the Greenberger-Yasin inequality (V^2+K^2<=1)--which for some strange reason has been called the Englert-Greenberger relation in Wikipeida, but that's another topic that needs correction. At any rate, the BPC deals not with the deterministic wavefunction time evolution process (as opposed to HUP), it rather deals with the measurement process addressed in the measurement theory that involves non-deterministic events such as the collapse of the wavefunction etc. My experiment violates NOT the deterministic QM formalism, it rather violates the BPC embodied in Greenberger-Yasin inequality. The intro to the article must be corrected to clarify this fact as well. -- Prof. Afshar 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Afshar, your point is clear on the duality relation, but it is not shared by a lot of physicists. Indeed Qureshi, Reitzner, and me, have all shown that you do math error in calculating the which way "distiguishability" to be 1, as indeed it is zero. All of those 3 papers as far as I know are currently in process of peer-reviewing. Concerning the complementarity principle and HUR, while the duality relation has been shown to be independent on Heisenberg's inequalities, it is still the case that violation of complementarity will violate the HUR. The explanation is as above - you violate PC by inconsistent mathematics, and hence in inconsistent model everything is provable, including that HUR are not valid. Danko Georgiev MD 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing I do not understand is how can it be said that which way "distiguishability" to be 0, when all photons not scattered by the wires appear to come from one hole or the other. The claim that distiguishability is 0 seems counter to experimental evidence, regardless of what the mathematics says. As I have argued previously, if we accept that distiguishability is 0 then this means that just because a photon appears to have come from a hole it does not mean that it did go through that hole. Through other arguments I have already presented this would mean that the only logical conclusion would be that photons do not travel in the classical sense of travelling at all, and that even with only one hole open, we still could not say that the photon went through the open hole. If it is appropriate for the article to have these mathematical "proofs" surely we need to also point out how this relates to what is actually observed? And do not these proofs also invalidate the application of complementarity because such application can have no meaning if which-way information has no meaning? This has been my question for a long time now, and I am still waiting for an answer. Dndn1011 11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Danko, you said: "your point is clear on the duality relation, but it is not shared by a lot of physicists." Quite the contrary is true! You have cited 3 unpublished papers, (which constitute OR in Wikipedia) as the source of your claim. I have cited at least 16 peer-reviewed papers by major physicists in my papers that define complementarity as the Greenberger-Yasin relationship, and define its parameters as I have defined. Please offer peer-reviewed published papers supporting your claim, otherwise, please kindly acknowledge the fact that in the absence of such peer-reviewed sources, your claim is OR, and all references to it in the article needs to be removed-- until of course, it is published in a major peer-reviewed physics journal. I hope the Mediator can join this discussion soon.-- Prof. Afshar 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Afshar, your OR complaints need to stop. I have adressed clearly this issue in previous post and I won't repeat myself. You needed 3 years for your paper to get published so stop "pushing" the others what should they do with their work. My work will be published when it is published, you can refer to it by the reputable pre-print server. Danko Georgiev MD 09:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In the interest of civility, I will respond after the Mediator catches up. Waiting... -- Prof. Afshar 12:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, I just want to say that I have no clue as to what you are talking about. I am not versed in this field, and the technical discussion is over my head. However, I can (an will) address the OR argument. From Wikipedia:Attribution: "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." As it stands right now, Danko, your 'claim' is not "attributable to a reliable, published source". If you can reference reliable, published sources for your claim, then your claim will not be considered to be OR. However, claims based on unpublished works are considered to be OR. Therefore, your unpublished papers are not valid references for the article. This is not to say, however, that your works are somehow inferior or worthless. They are just invalid for the purposes of Wikipedia referencing. If Afshar's references are not published yet, then his claims could be considered to be OR also. Sdirrim 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely correct, as I see it. Dndn1011 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Overall, If you think that anything should be removed on the basis of OR, then you should provide specific examples in the article, and post it in the Disputed Segments (revised) talk page section. Sdirrim 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If a violation of complementarity throws the formalism into question, (as it might) it just means we might be able to see some violation of the formalism in the Afshar experiment. But if we don't - there are three possible reasons why - not just one. Either the suggested "knock on" effect is incorrect, or this effect has yet to be found, or the said violation of complementarity is incorrect. Three logical possibilitys. Not one. --Carl A Looper 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The Greenberger-Yasin inequality (V^2 + K^2 <= 1) does not so much define complementarity as such. It defines the conditions in which complementarity can be considered correct. We could just as easily use the expression (V^2 + K^2 > 1) ,ie. to define the conditions in which complementarity can be considered incorrect. A violation of complementarity is not a violation of either expression. Otherwise all we'd be arguing is that:
If (V^2 + K^2 <= 1) then (V^2 + k^2 <= 1)
Or
If (V^2 + K^2 > 1) then (V^2 + K^2 > 1)
Which reduces to:
If complementarity is correct then complementarity is correct.
Or
If complementarity is incorrect then complementarity is incorrect.
The following is a less pointless reading of the inequality:
If (V^2 + K^2 <= 1) then complementarity is correct
Else complementarity is incorrect
Or reciprically, saying the same thing:
If (V^2 + K^2 > 1) then complementarity is incorrect
Else complementarity is correct
--Carl A Looper 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

HUP does not explicitly deny nor confirm the identity one might otherwise assign the wave function and/or the path function of BPC. But BPC does. BPC suggests that one can not decouple the propertys of a wave function from it's identity - ie. that a measurement on it's propertys is a measurement on it's identity. In the Afshar experiment this is shown not to be the case. One can make a measurement on the identity of the wave function without making a measurement on it's propertys. Furthermore, one can make a measurement on the propertys of the path function without disrupting a measurement on the wave function's identity. Decoupling the path function from it's identity has not appear acheivable. Also, the path function serves two or three masters (is aliased between them) - 1. a particle detection signifys (post selects) one of two apertures, 2. a single aperture signifys (pre-selects) a single detector, 3. Two apertures are incapable of pre-selecting which detector will recieive a detection. The formalism is generally prospective - ie. concerns cases 2 and 3 on the path function. Case 1 is a classical reading of the path function and accords with the fact that a detection in a given detector signifys that it's corresponding aperture was open at a particular instant in time - ie. irregardless of whether the particle was in that aperture or in both. In simpler terms, although we can assign meaning to a detection (eg. it signifys an open aperture) we still can't assign meaning to the particle (ie. which detector will recieve the detection) unless only one aperture is open. This puts BPC in a compromised position - firstly, in the way that the wave function's identity can be decoupled from it's propertys (ie. there is a quantum world) and secondly, as a consequence of the first point, BPC either devolves into a logical but pointless statement regarding the status of the apertures (ie. only one aperture can be open, or two open, but not one and two open) - or BPC is incorrect, ie. that in the case of both apertures open, (ie. assuming BPC allows path functions in this case) a measurement on the identity of the wave function does not exclude a measurement on the path function - at least not in terms of case 1 of the path function. If BPC does not allow a path function, (ie. when both apertures are open), then BPC just returns back to being a pointless principle, ie. suggesting the logical but hardly profound statement, that only one aperture can be open, or two open, but not one and two open. --Carllooper 05:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed piece #4

Dear Mediator, I suggest that the following text be deleted from the "Specific critiques" section due to Wiki OR rules discussed above i.e.: lack of reputable peer-reviewed references for the stated claims regarding lack of which-way information. -- Prof. Afshar 05:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

--

  • There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons.
    • Danko Georgiev, etc....
    • Tabish Qureshi, etc....
    • Daniel Reitzner, etc....

--

Afshar, please shorten the big pasages that you want to delete. It is obvious what section you want to delete. The ArXiV e-print is a REPUTABLE source, as well as PhilSci e-print. Recent breakthrough theorem proving the Poincare conjecture posted by Grisha Perelman has never been published in peer-review journal, and the only 3 papers by Perelman are in ArXiv. Yet he did the greatest thing in the 21st century mathematics, and he was awarded Fields medal, which Perelman has REJECTED, saying that the joury itself is NOT competent to judge his mathematics. Your request cannot be satisfied on grounds that the quoted e-prints are not reputable. I vote against. Danko Georgiev MD 07:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Presentation on a preprint server like ArXiv certainly qualifies as "publication", but can it be considered a "reputable" source? Certainly a lot (hopefully most) of the articles there are reputable, but since there is no editorial selection or peer review, it is possible to publish junk there, and many articles certainly are junk. Perelman's proof is notable through it's coverage in the popular and technical press, so a link to the arXiv version is appropriate. Articles that appear only on a preprint server, without significant comments from other sources, can be considered in no way reliable and must be treated as original research, at least as far as the content is concerned.
In the present case, we are trying to describe a controversy/dialog. An online preprint is a reliable indication that a participant in the discussion makes a particular argument. If the preprints do not attract independent attention, then the question is how to decide which ones are notable enough to report. The only criterion that occurs to me, although it is difficult to apply neutrally, is to base inclusion on the notability of the author.
If we can trust Wikipedia (not always a good idea), we can note that only two opponents cited, Bill Unruh and Luboš Motl, have their own article. (At least they are the only ones that have been given a blue link.) Unless strong arguments for the notability of the other authors can be provided, I would support eliminating them.
--Art Carlson 09:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Carlson, your statement is extremely ridiculous. The authors in most published scientific literature don't have Wikipedia articles. Indeed there are very strict standards when writing about living people, and usually even distinguished scientists don't have Wiki-entry under their name. Wikipedia is NOT reputable source for Wikipedia. It is paradoxical, and self-contradictory. Please support Afshar on logical grounds, but do not propose clear violations of Wiki-policy. Please find text in the Wiki-policy that supports the Wikipedia entries as reputable. Danko Georgiev MD 09:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I have seen that you have PhD in physics. If so, your posts should rely on physical arguments of what is true or false, and not on extra-scientific grounds how popular is a scientist, and whether he has an Wiki-entry. Danko Georgiev MD 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, gee! Very ridiculous maybe, but surely not extreme?
I agree that the existence of a Wikipedia article is a poor criteria to determine notability. Publication in a preprint server is even worse. Please suggest a better alternative.
Talk pages are not for the purpose of discussing physics. Editorial arguments, such as the notability of an author, are the relevant criteria here. Wikipedia:Attribution: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."
--Art Carlson 10:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct; however in order to maintain a neutral point of view counter arguements should be from sources of equivalent stature and notability as the sources for the arguments themselves. This is important because otherwise bias will occur. Print material is not necessary; if so we should have to take out Unruh's argument which has never been printed to my knowlegde. But Unruh makes up for this by being notable. If there is no limit to this then al kinds of people will jump in and try to gain notability through contributing to this article. That is not appropriate behavior for editors here. So what we need to do to resolve this is check the sources for the text that Afshar suggests removing. We then need to reach concensus on whether these sources are strong enough for inclusion here taking into account where they have previously been published in some form and who is responsible for them. Also, the view that path information does not exist even without the wires present needs to actually be relevant to what Afshar's paper claims. Finally, if the preseence of this view creates more problems than it resolves, it might be best to leave it out of the article. This is the reason for various arguments I presented about the consequences of accepting the view that there is no path information even without the wires. Very elementary logic will show that this would have far reaching consqeuences and thus cannot be trusted without a thourough review by experts.
My conclusion is simple; we leave a reference to a new wiki article to satisfy the needs of Danko et al, in which they can put their postulations. As far as I can see, they have no real place in *this* article. Surely this is a viable solution? Dndn1011 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dndn, previously Linas has put equivalent example with water waves, that creates the Afshar observations, the lensing is achieved by varying the depth of the water tank, there are two slits, there is image. All this is explainable only by wave properties and never requires particle-like trajectory. Every image of a slit in the water setup is created by wave that passes through both slits, so no which way. Reply to Carlson, e-prints are notable enough, because the claims are verifiable. Everyone can download and read the paper. Unruh's and Motl's blogs are extremely bad sources, because there is no full argument, only sketch of a such, which is proven to be false argument, and always remember that this blog page can any moment be deleted so there will be NO RECORD of what has been said or written. Motl and Unruh after the deletion can deny what they have said or written. In contrast deletion from the e-print cannot be done freely by the author, and in case of ArXiv the original paper always remains on the server, there appears new [src] version that says that paper is removed, but you can always read it via clicking on version 1. Danko Georgiev MD 06:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. (regarding the bolded part of my post) If one is not competent to judge whether a provided proof is valid or not, how/why such incompetent editor should be able to propose deletions of text that he/she is incompetent to understand. Everyone should edit what is in his own competence. Some editors are spell-checkers, and repair spelling errors [see the last edit] but they do not propose/advocate text deletions. Danko Georgiev MD 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Danko, you persistently misunderstand what we are trying to do here. we are not here to argue of our own personal viewpoints on the experiment or other experiments. My reasons for presenting arguments that I present have been for the sake of trying to gain clarity for the non expert reader which is what this article should be for. Hence I ask lots of questions where things are not clear. If you state something that does not make sense, I will ask questions. Check my posts and you will see this pattern. Personal conclusions I try to keep off this page (if there have been infringements, appologies to anyone who cares). However what you do is bring in all kinds of sources that have not been vetted by anyone but yourself, you present OR arguments. Additionally, it is not our job to validate proofs. This is why there is no need for what you call a competant editor. We should be reporting on competancy here, not providing it. The question is only whether what you claim meets the standards of Wikipedia for inclusing in the article. I do not believe so. Additionally the inclusion of all this material you present appears to only confuse the reader. For example, you give an example of a similat experiment conducted using water waves and yet I can not for the life of me see the connection. Water waves are waves, and it is clear how those waves are supposed to behave. The point about Afshar's experiment is not that the behavior agrees with wave nature of light, but that it does so while also retaining which-way information for individual photons. In the water based experiment there is no equivalent of photons. So there is no valid comparison. Thus, either answer my question for the sake of creating a clarity, or clarify what you say so that it does make sense, or take such irrelevances away from the discussion.
One further thing, an e-print is not notable by itself. Notability is assessed by concensus. It would appear that the only one breaking a unanimus vote on whether your contibutions a notable, is yourself. This is making the whole process of creating a good article much harder than it should be. Dndn1011 11:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dndn, when it comes to science you must understand what you write. Competence here is what matters. The usage of appropriate words, and expressions cannot be estimated properly by not competent editor. The fact that you don't understand the subtle differences between various formulations, and the fact that you don't understand what is the link between "water waves" and "light waves" just reveals your incompetence. Yet I don't mind to help you: the term "wave". Wikipedia accumulates useful information due to competent editors that edit topics that they understand, and some entries get spoiled because there are unfortunately editors that are incompetent in what they are writing. I will not respond to any further comments by Dndn, as I believe his posts are off-topic, incompetent and derogatory. Danko Georgiev MD 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I argued above that preprints cannot automatically be considered reliable/notable because there is practically no constraint on who submits what. Danko Georgiev has not spoken to this point. --Art Carlson 12:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Carlson, refresh your memory what means Reliable in Wiki-policy, and do not use together reliable/notable with a dash. Danko Georgiev MD 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Carlson, I usually deposit most of my work to be available free at e-prints, and I am well acquainted with the requirements. For each section there is moderator, that allows for the newly added "pending items" to be publicly available. You have to be registeres, and if you are not scientist, and/or your manuscript does not satisfy the criteria for scientific work, it will be embargoed by the moderator. This does not mean that the work is peer-reviewed, but e-print is NOT blog, and e-prints contain PhD theses, as well as newly written revolutionary works that have not passed peer-review (the Grisha Perelman case). E-prints are verifiable sources, and reputable in sense that you can check the registration data of the author, which is subject to moderation also. Of course you may try to register yourself with pseudonym, and try to upload a nonsense paper/joke just to disprove me experimentally. I don't believe that you will succeed to do this, especially in arXiv where operates a novel endorcement system. Danko Georgiev MD 13:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from above that Danko has no reliable references, and the disputed text is OR. Let's vote. Mediator, here's mine: DELETE. -- Prof. Afshar 14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, Refresh your memory what means Reliable in Wiki-policy and do not freely produce satire. Danko Georgiev MD 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Dr. Georgiev, you know more about the preprint system than I do, but the article on arXiv#Peer-review states, "Endorsement comes from either another arXiv author who is an endorser or is automatic, depending on various evolving criteria. Endorsers are not asked to review the paper for errors, but to check if the paper is appropriate for the intended subject area." This sounds like a very low bar, so I still think publication in a preprint server is not in itself sufficient reason to cite an idea in a Wikipedia article. Do you really think that is reason enough, in any case? --Art Carlson 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel a clarification is needed here: Danko's paper is in PhilSci archive (a "Philosophy of Science" archive which has a very low credibility in physics if any.) Qureshi's paper is under peer-review, and I know he is having trouble getting his paper published. Reitzner "paper" is only two pages and merely a comment, lacking a reasonable level of detail for a paper in physics. Although Qureshi and Reitzner papers are on arXiv, neither authors are notable, and since arXiv is not a reputable peer-reviewed reference, their thesis including Danko's, which challenges established physics literature MUST be considered OR according to Wiki rules and removed from the article. -- Prof. Afshar 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If I prove that 2+2 \neq 5 this is ordinary mathematics and not OR. Afshar your maniac behavior derogating Einstein, Bohr and others, and speaking about taking the Nobel Prize of Einstein is certainly charlatanism, and even does not qualify as OR. It is not necessary to be notable scientist to prove that 2+2 \neq 5. I vote to keep the whole criticism section as it correctly represents the two types of objections raised against your nonsense. If they are removed this completely unbalances the article, since Unruh's and Motl's positions are mathematically flawed exactly as your one is. Here we are speaking about science and I suggest that others vote for Afshar's banning from Wikipedia. Afshar is charlatan searching for self-promotion. All his activities in Wikipedia have destructive purpose aiming at unbalancing the article. Published or not, viewpoints are clear. Danko Georgiev MD 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Following the request of Dr. Georgiev, I have reviewed relevant Wikipedia policy. I found nothing that explicitly talks about preprint servers. The most directly relevant official policy is Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources, which states in part:

  • A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process .... Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
  • A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. ... With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. ... For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.

In addition, the discussion under Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Does this mean we have to include every crank view that can get itself published? ends with the question:

It doesn't matter whether the crank has started a website, written a self-published book, or bought a publishing house: if no-one else has taken note of his theory, why should we?

Strictly applying policy, I think we would have to delete this section. I have some reservations because it might very well be of interest to some readers to easily access this information even if it is not reliable. A solution might be a footnote with links to all arXiv articles that reference Afshar's work. I would probably support a compromise along this line, but until someone works out a consensual proposal, I have to vote to DELETE. I also have the impression that no new arguments are being presented by the parties, so I hope to hear from the mediator soon. --Art Carlson 12:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


A long, long time ago I suggested (and tried to implement) this idea. Yes footnotes to things of interest: this is fine. There is no problem there. However this is not enough for some people (Price back then, Danko now). Dndn1011 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that all involved parties save for Carl A Looper have spoken. Carl, do you have something to add, or shall I just make a decision based on the arguments presented to me? Sdirrim 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to delete - not because I disagree with the arguments provided for removing such (ie. what is Wikipedia permitted and what isn't) but because the debate is very important, ie. irregardless of Wikipedia guidlines. One possible compromise is to set up a new "sister" article - that is about the debate - as distinct from being about the experiment, - and all the debate references moved there - where they can continue being edited. I don't know if this new article would be any more allowed than the current situation. Can one have an article about debates? If one can have an article about, say, "intelligent design", I can't see why one can't have an article about something more substantial, such as the debate in question. --Carl A Looper 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
They are important. However, I believe that the arguments above have shown that the included debate references are missing reliable sources, and should not be permitted anywhere in Wikipedia until reliable sources are found. Although their importance is clear, Wikipedia (let alone this article) is not the place for these debates. Sdirrim 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
One can't get any more reliable than the horses's mouth, and while Wikipedia is not the right place for debates it is the right place for articles about debates. It just depends on how it is done. Have a look at [[1]]. This was a featured article! About ID! If one can have an article about ID (!!!) I can't see how one can deny an article on debate around the Afshar experiment. Now don't get me wrong, I see great merit in the Afshar experiment and no merit whatsoever in ID. I merely draw attention to what appears permissable, irregardless of content. --Carl A Looper 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this suggestion - Carl, you save the text (and references) that you think should be moved into a seperate "Debates about quantum physics" article into a text editor, and post here when you do that. That way, I can safely remove the text from this article. Afterwards, you can create a new article as you described in your post above. Sdirrim 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me comment on the comments that Afshar has made here.

Qureshi's paper is under peer-review, and I know he is having trouble getting his paper published.

I would like Afshar to mention his sources for claiming that I am having difficulty in getting my paper published. This paper was written in mid January 2007, and in mid March 2007, somebody is claiming that I am having difficulty in having the work published. Let me mention here that Afshar's experiment was done in 2004, and it has appeared in a peer reviewed journal in 2007.

Danko's paper has appeared in Progress in Physics, a peer reviewed journal. Here is the link: Single Photon Experiments and Quantum Complementarity So, it should not be treated as OR, whatever that ridiculous term means on this forum. So, now there is published, peer-reviewed paper showing there is no which-way information in Afshar's experiment.

Although this article is about Afshar's experiment, it is our duty to make sure that the reader is not led to erroneously believe that complementarity is violated. --Tabish q 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable \neq Reliable

Dear Carlson, you started this proposal that the sourses MUST BE notable. Now Afshar misrepresents your proposal as fact and derives wrong conclusions as always. So please everybody click on the link for RELIABLE SOURCES, and stop this nonsense for notability, novelness, and how famous is scientist. All the arguments for deletion of disputed fragment #4 violated Wikipedia policy Danko Georgiev MD 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it." Danko Georgiev MD 08:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, that seems to be the basis of almost all of the arguments against "Disputed Piece #4". The issue was essentially whether to consider ArXiv a reliable source, and if it was not, whether to remove the references as they would have no reliable sources. However, I think that there was inadvertant confusion of "notable" and "reliable". Sdirrim 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
ArXiv can't be judged to be a reliable source or not en block, you have to look the the author(s) and judge whether they are reliable sources on a particular area of expertise. Bill Unruh, for example, is a reliable source in the field of quantum optics, on ArXiv or elsewhere. --Michael C. Price talk 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Bill Unruh is an expert in the field. The problem with sources such as ArXiv is that someone under the name of Bill Unruh, or Bill Unruh himself, could post a paper containing complete bogus. Also, it would remain there because there is no peer review, and because only the author can actually remove the paper. Sure, a moderator could "embargo" a paper. But, as someone supporting ArXiv said, "This does not mean that the work is peer-reviewed". Now, from Wikipedia:Attribution: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process". If an article or paper can be made publicly available without first being peer-reviewed or fact-checked, then it is no better than a questionable resource. Again, from [Wikipedia:Attribution]]: "Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves". I am not specifically referring to anyone's references or arguments, I am just discussing ArXiv's reliablility in general. Sdirrim 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmph. I note that [Wikipedia:Attribution]] also says When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications, so Unruh counts as a reliable source, on ArXiv or elsewhere.--Michael C. Price talk 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree with Michael. Personally, even if Unruh's work was scribbled on a torn piece of tissue, I would still consider it a reliable source! I think in case of Unruh his very name should suffice to make his work not subject to Wiki OR rules. BTW/ One CANNOT post a bogus paper on arXiv using someone else’s name, because Cornell University admins. check the author’s affiliations and e-mail routes before they post it. Nonetheless, it is the author’s reputation that makes the arXiv papers notable, especially if the expert happens to have published numerous papers on the subject in the reputable peer-reviewed journals in the past, which is definitely the case with Prof. Unruh. -- Prof. Afshar 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Danko to be banned from editing this article and contributing to the talk page

I believe Danko has shown himself incapable of understanding wikipedia policy, incapable of civilised discussion and obstructive to the process of creating a good article. He is attacking personally anyone who disagrees with his point of view. He refuses to answer questions asked to help clarify what he is actally saying if it does not suit him to attempt to do so.

Thus I propose that we make a formal request to ban Danko from this article. This would be regretable, however I can not see how we can possibly make progress if we are fending Danko off all the time.

Even if this formal request is met, it will not stop Danko from contributing to other articles in Wikipedia or indeed follow the constructive suggestion I made of starting a new article to deal with more detailed counter arguments related to the Afshar Experiment, which can be assessed by editors on its own merrit, but would at least allow us to complete our task here.

The mission here is to create an article that conforms to wikipedia policy. There has been a recent streamlining of wikipedia policy with regards to editing articles. For :those who are not aware, these are now Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Attribution now covers the previously seperate articles Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I believe it is clear by reading through these articles that Danko is persistently ignoring wikipedia policy and worse than that attacking anyone who tries to explain this policy to him.

What choice can there really be but to ban him?

Please add your choice below, either BAN or DO NOT BAN. This can then be used to help wikipedia admins reach a decision of what to do. Dndn1011 12:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree. Sorry Danko, but once you've published your claims in a reputable peer-reviewed journal you are welcome to include your thesis in the article. Your constant personal attacks are an eyesore, and detrimental to progress on the article. BAN from the current article and talk page. -- Prof. Afshar 12:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, D. Georgiev confused the role of wikipedia with a monograph. The aim of the 'Afshar experiment page' is to present objectively and neutrally the result of the experiment and not to humiliate always its author. Georgiev is passionate but this is not sufficient to excuse all. Why also to play like that? Additionally if the theory of Georgiev was right it would not be necessary to create all this senseless debate .This is more than enough: BAN Drezet 12:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT BAN - What Danko is saying regarding the science is completely correct (in my view) - but his abuse of Prof Afshar is completley incorrect - and Danko is incapable of separating the two. I should also add that Prof Afshar, in my view, is also completely correct. Danko - if the wave function is always valid (quantum realism) the path function is never valid - other than as an approximation of the wave function - and therefore complementarity is just redundant or incorrect. But Bohr's Complementarity implys the wave function can have an ontological leave of absence, in the inter-measurement interval by virtue of the epistomological holiday it otherwise enjoys during this interval. But Afshar holds the wave function to account, for the entire duration of the experiment. So it has no opportunity to have a holiday. It is ontologically always there. In quantum realism the wires are not necessary since the formalism is interpreted as ontological rather than epistomological. An ontological formalism always holds the wave function to account - it can never have a break. So quantum realism already violates complementarity. Bohr was not a quantum realist ("there is no quantum world") but you are - by virtue of the ontological status you give the formalism, and the Afshar experiment is as well, but by different means - by epistomolgically holding the wave function to account (using the wires). If there is a problem exposed in the Afshar experiment it's not to be found in any error by Afshar. Or in any error by yourself. --Carl A Looper 01:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

PLACE ON PROBATION - I would like to see a probation tried first where Danko is enjoined to refrain from personal attacks. If he violates this, then an administrator should ban him. We need to take measured steps here and I believe that probation is the right way to go. If this were being done through Arbcomm, I'd be willing to bet that this would be the solution the arbitrators would agree to. --ScienceApologist 13:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ABSTAIN - I haven't interacted with Danko long enough to know how valuable his insights are or whether it is possible to work with him on editing the article. I do agree that he is guilty of making personal attacks. I would admonish him to keep a civil tone and assume good faith. If he persists, then a ban might be necessary. --Art Carlson 08:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Change vote to PLACE ON PROBATION. That sounds like a plan. --Art Carlson 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


BAN PLACE ON PROBATION(Flexibility is important in the process of reaching a concensus) Dndn1011 12:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

BAN I was not aware that he had already been on probation. I am taking Linas's comment in good faith and so changing back to Ban. Dndn1011 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT BAN Please see Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. I will add the {{uw-npa2}} tag to the talk page. Please follow proper procedure for trying to get a user banned. Sdirrim 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As a mediator, I shouldn't vote on this. Sdirrim 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be advised that the proper proceedure has been followed, and that Danko hit level 4 more than a year ago. You may review the voluminous talk page archives for support for this claim. He has consistently failed to heed those warnings. linas 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sdirrim, I would suggest that both as mediator and as a relative newcomer to this situation it may be best for you not to vote on this topic. Please also note that we do not have the power to ban anyone. The attempt here is to see if there is a concensus (and failing that a Supermajority) for escalating this matter futher. It is quite correct for me to suggest this and to see what current opinions are. It can be seen that this question is being taken seriously by editors. Dndn1011 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A consensus to escalate the matter is one thing. Voting on whether someone should be banned is something else. There is no need to have a consensus on whether a user should be reported, and that is really all the power that we have, to SUGGEST that editors take action. But it still is a nice idea to get a consensus. It just implies that we are directly voting on whether Danko should be banned. And I realize (and agree) that as a impartial mediator, I should have no vote in this. Sdirrim 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If a concensus is shown to ban, then admins can more quickly reach a decision, hence the reason for this being stated in the way that it is. Dndn1011 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BAN. He's been on probation for more than a year, and it appears to have done nothing whatsoever to discourage him. linas 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that Danko has ever been put on probation. For example, his name does not show up on WP:Probation, and there are no notification notes on this page or his own Talk page. Could you give us some details, please? --Art Carlson 09:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Art, back in March 2006 admin Gareth Hughes mediated a dispute that ended with a request by him to Danko "to cease from unsubstantiated claims". Danko then agreed to "prepare an article on complementarity in Afshar's experiment that I hope will be strong enough to pass a peer-reviewing and get published in journal - therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued". It wasn't long before he broke his agreement and continued to push his OR, and make personal attacks. The rest is too cumbersome to mention, but it is all in the archives. Just take a quick look at this to see what I mean!-- Prof. Afshar 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Technically, a mediator does not have power to impose sanctions on a user. So it appears that technically, Danko has not been placed under probation per administrator or arbitrator fiat. --ScienceApologist 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • However, the "mediator" in this case actually was an administrator. Sdirrim 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT BAN Danko's claims are not unsubstantiated. Since people here are insisting only on published reference, this published, peer-reviewed paper by Danko
Single Photon Experiments and Quantum Complementarity
shows that there is no which-way information in Afshars experiment. Can somebody clarify that before Afshar's paper appeared in Foundations of Physics in 2007, was his work OR, and hence not fit for Wikipedia? --Tabish q 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this correct:

BAN = 4 (Afshar, Drezet, Linas, dndn1011)
DO NOT BAN = 1 (Carl)
PROBATION = 2 (Art, ScienceApol)
(updated by Dndn1011 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
(reupdated due to vote withdrawal by sdirrim. --Carl A Looper 02:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

--Carl A Looper 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Piece #5

As there was discussion on this section in /* Disputed Piece #2 */, I am adding this for debate.

  • "Afshar's experiment does not yield which way information and demonstrate interference effects for any individual particle (the photon), any more than the classic double slit experiment does, since we already know the photon propagates according to a wave-equation between the slits and any screen (i.e. behaves like a wave until it hits the screen, whereupon is observed as a particle.) The claim of complementarity violation in Afshar's experiment is a statistical argument that applies only to large numbers photons, not to individuals (cf "the particle" above in Bohr's statement is a reference to a single photon, not to groups of photons).
"To conclude, in spite of Afshar's claim we still need two experiments in order to exploit the totality of the phenomenon. As pointed out originally by Bohr, we can not use information associated with a same photon event to rebuild in a statistical way (i.e. by an accumulation of such events) the two complementary distributions of photons in the image plane and in the interference plane. The hypothesis of Afshar that we only need some partial information concerning the interference pattern in order to reconstruct the complete interference is only based on the idea that the fringes already exist. The whole reasoning is circular and for this reason misleading." - Aurelien Drezet

Sdirrim 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE. Two reasons. 1. It mangle's Drezet's argument - which is otherwise a relatively good one (even though I actually disagree with Drezet) and 2. It is also radically silly.

(re-edited for comprehensibility)

The second part of the argument is saying that Afshar's statistical demonstration of interference (used to violate complementarity) is invalid because Bohr is talking about single particles. If we are to accept this logic then ALL demonstrations of interference I can think of are invalid, including the archetypal double slit experiment.

The first part of the argument seems to be something like this. Since the twin slit experiment doesn't violate complementarity, and there is no difference between Afshar's experiment and the twin slit experiment, then Afshars' experiment doesn't violate it either.

But how is there no difference?

"since we already know the photon propagates according to a wave-equation between the slits and any screen (i.e. behaves like a wave until it hits the screen, whereupon is observed as a particle."

In what way does "already knowing" how the wave function propogates (and particles observed), make Afshar's experiment no different from the twin slit experiment?

Nowhere is this explained. It's as if one had just argued:

"A cat and dog can't be regarded as animals (or a vegetable), any more than a rabbit, since we already know the Earth is round"

Are we to be this radical? I guess what I'm trying to say is that this text, which quotes Drezet, is proposing a very different argument from Drezet - while subsequently pretending to be a summary of Drezet. It is actually OR and should be removed on this basis. This is not to say it is completely devoid of merit but without reference material to support it, it becomes worse than OR - it is OR without the R.

--Carl A Looper 22:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE Dndn1011 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE, because (1) the source is an (unreliable) preprint, and no arguments have been advanced that suggest it should be included anyway, and (2) the passage as it stands is incomprehensible. --Art Carlson 08:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


DELETE It will be too long to explain this too the reader I guess and I have no time to teach QM here. However i did not ask any one to quote me out of the context (I should have remove that my self) . As i told you this is the page of Afshar not the page of the anti-Afshar(s). Certainly it will enough to give a list of people at the end of the article only as suggested reading (like that the reader of the page will be free to choose his best interpretation more objectively). NB: I am conviced thatthis page is like a perpetum mobile : the same discussions are coming again and again without any progress (is for this reason that i stopped to edit things in this page). Drezet 10:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this time we will succeed in finally wrestling this to the ground, especially as Sdirrim is doing a good job. I agree with you completely, also, that listing people at the end of the article would be appropriate. This article should simply state what the Afshar experiment is; what Afshar claims it shows; a few key *relevant* arguments to counter Afshar's claims (and only Afshar's claims, and only where attributible); rebuttles from Afshar (only where attributible) and links for further reading. Some of these things are not so clear to decide but I don't think it will be that hard as long as we stay focused.
An example of a difficult issue is the inclusion of Unruh's argument, which has not been published in a peer reviewed paper and additionally appears to not be relevant to the argument at all. Until Afshar's paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, it perhaps was relevant to include Unruh's argument. However this is no longer the case, and to have NPOV we should not have a peer reviewed article countered by an argument presented a few years ago on a blog, even if the personal presenting it is notable. There is of course nothing to prevent the article including links to Unruh's argument. Dndn1011 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else wish to contribute? I would like to make sure that I have heard all sides (even if I think I know what they will say) before a decision is made. Sdirrim 16:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone disagree with deleting this? Anyone at all? I will delete this tomorrow unless I get some disagreement (not that you need to disagree). Sdirrim 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I respect Drezet, to be consistent with Wiki rules, DELETE, especially becuase he himself doesn't mind. Drezet is a scholar who will have plenty of opportunities to publish his peer-reviewed views in light of the Found. Phys. paper, and add to the healthy debate. We can add those views at that point. Thanks Aurelien!-- Prof. Afshar 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP - the argument is sound; no individual photon yields both which-way and interference effects any more than any individual photon in the classical double slit experiment does (i.e. they don't). Perhaps the argument can be clarified; fair enough, so improve don't delete. --Michael C. Price talk 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michael, was wondering when you would show up again... I believe you are completely wrong in your interpretation, and in any way it is Afhsar's interpretation which is of importance here, not that of any editors. But here is a counter to your point that is directly connected to Afshar's interpretation, in a form that non-expert readers might find easy to digest: Some of the photons do yield both which-way and interference effects in the experiment. If 100 photons are measured as hitting the targets with the wires in place, it is known that statistically a certain percentage (I think it was around 7%) must have interfered with themselves in order to avoid the wires. So in fact 7% of photons do exhibit both which-way and interference effects. The only thing that is not known is precisely which photons of the 100 have done so. However, the paradox is exposed even without this knowledge. Since the paradox is exposed, BPC is violated, as we can no longer avoid concluding a paradox. Dndn1011 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Your argument would apply equally without the wires: the photons must interfere with each other to produces the fringes, yet we can tell which-way they go by looking through the lens .... so what gives? The flaw (of course) is that no photon observed through the lens contributes to a fringe -- and this also applies when the wires are present. So no dice, I'm afraid. --Michael C. Price talk 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again you present a different experiment to the one that we are discussing in thia article. Fringes do not form an important part of Afshar's experiment as I understand his experiment to be. You are not actually counterting my point at all. But in any case you need to get your interpretation published in a peer reviewed paper for it to get it included in the article. But a further point: since all photons are detected, then any photons contributing to a fringe would also be detected. Otherwise, what happens to your supposed photons that do contribute to a fringe? Do they just vanish or something? Dndn1011 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
An important difference is that, in the twin slit experiment, no which way information (or path function) can be postulated since each and every detection can be traced back to two apertures rather than one. But this is not the case in the Afshar experiment. Each and every detection, in the Afshar experiment, can only be traced back to a single aperture. It is this capacity (to trace paths back to a single aperture) that otherwise defines the path function as such, ie. as distinct from a (time reversed) wave function. So there we have the difference. For single photons neither experiment can demonstrate interference - but as Michael has previously argued "we already know single photons interfere". --Carl A Looper 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand me -- I was referring to the Afshar experiment without wires, not the twin slit experiment which has no lens.--Michael C. Price talk 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Or you are misunderstanding me. I am talking about the Afshar experiment (which has wires) and the archetypal twin slit experiment (which doesn't have a lens). I am talking about your original argument - not this discussion you are having with dndn. --Carl A Looper 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is important that we retain the underlying argument for the sake of neutrality, I propose that we remove the quote, especially given that the person who was quoted has stated that it is a statement taken out of context. We may find other material to back it, but the quote is inappropriate. Sdirrim 17:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed peice #6

I'm submitting the following for deletion:
  • Niels Bohr stated "an adequate tool for a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[11]
If the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), how can Bohr's principle of complementarity be violated by the experiment?[13][14][15]

DELETE This is either an innocent question for which the author does not have an answer or it is a rhetorical question. As a rhetorical question the absence of any answer merely serves to bolster the rhetorical force of the question - which is to imply BPC is equivalent to HUP - but without arguing the case.

Instead of the rhetorical answer I had in response to this question (which has been deleted) I seek here to answer the innocent question.

While it is true Bohr identifys the formalism with complementarity it is not in the manner of an equivalence. In Bohr's words the formalism is an example (or an instance) of a concept that is otherwise bigger than the formalism. If the principle were no more than the formalism then there would be no need for the principle. However, Bohr has articulated the principle across a number of texts, (not just in quotable phrases) and the principle emerges as saying MORE than the formalism. It is that aspect of the principle, in surplus to the formalism, that can be challenged without necessarily challenging the formalism. One can not to do the reverse. One can not use the formalism to protect this surplus aspect of complementarity. Or maybe one can - but where is that argument? Not here.

--Carl A Looper 04:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Carl's last paragraph here makes a lot more sense to me than the the way the article reads now. In the sense of being comprehensible, whether or not it is right. I think the distinction between BPC and HUP is essential to making sense out of the Afshar experiment and needs to be expounded in the article. The tricky part is either to make what we say attributable or at least to come to an agreement among the editors that our summary is accurate.
I vote for a qualified DELETE. This particular passage doesn't contribute much, but it needs to be replaced with something better. (Or the first bullet point in this section expanded.)
--Art Carlson 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE this one has been bugging me since I first read the article. Carl A Looper has presented a very eloquent, succinct and in my opinion unarguable position on the matter. Dndn1011 10:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP The quote from Bohr -- the originator the term "complementarity" -- is sourced; the rhetorical question can be converted to a statement if you wish. --Michael C. Price talk 11:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As Michael suggests elsewhere the formalism predates complementarity but this does not mean complementarity must be understood as only derivable from the formalism. It can also be regarded as expanding the formalism. The quote from Bohr does not provide enough information (despite Michael's claim) to suggest only Michaels reading is applicable. Consider the following sentence:
An adequate method for painting abstract art is offered precisely by a can of paint manipulated in the manner of Jackson Pollack.
To follow Michael's logic, we must conclude that abstract art can only be defined in terms of the way that Pollack painted. But this is not the case. There is implied in the statement, if not otherwise mentioned, other ways of producing abstract art. And the articulation of such other methods does not invalidate the above statement.
Note that the word "adequate" can be read as excluding not just "inadequate" but also "perfect".
The point is that we need more information about what Bohr said - not just isolated quotes - if the question is to be resolved. But Michaels' argument is that we don't need any more information - that the quote says it all. It doesn't.
--Carl A Looper 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe your analogy fails because many artists would disagree with your reformulated statement, whereas physicists accept the validity of Bohr's statement. --Michael C. Price talk 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Artists may disagree with the statement, and so to may scientists, eg. to copy Pollack is not to produce abstract art at all but to participate in Neo Abstract Expressionism (or form of postmodern art). But this is not the point of the analogy. The category "abstract art" or more specifically, "abstract expressionism" has a number of participants only one of which is Pollack. In other words Pollack's art does not define Abstract Art. It is the concept of Abstract Art which defines or otherwise categorises Pollack's art (amongst others) as an example of abstract expressionism. in similar fashion, it is Bohr who is categorising the formalism as a "complementary way of description". Furthermore the validity of the statement is not necessarily in question. And is not made any less so by the participation of other complementary ways of description. The point of the analogy, is that Bohr's statement does not rule out everything else Bohr has said in relation to complementarity. The issue is whether everything else Bohr has said confirms the meaning that Michael (and others) have otherwise extracted from the quote. But nowhere is this research demonstrated - a single quote is supposed to constitute the argument. And it doesn't. --Carl A Looper 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is (as you mention) that other people also interpret BPC in the same way I have. Since some of them are reliable sources this should be reported in the article. --Michael C. Price talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE. After the current cleanup of OR from the article, it would be apt to mention the distinction between HUP and BPC, and how BPC is imposed on the formalism and not the other way around. That text can also be included in the PC article. This is a subtle issue that needs to be written very carefully. It is important to point out that the main point of my papers have been to highlight this important separation in that BPC can be shown to be violated without a violation of the formalism. I can expound on this point further if other editors wish me to.-- Prof. Afshar 11:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BPC is imposed on the formalism and not the other way around is completely wrong, and that's why the quote needs to stay. BPC in no way alters the formalism (the dynamics of the wave-equation) -- it's something that you derive from the formalism. Historically the formalism (e.g. Schrodinger wave-equation) came first, a decade or so later came complementarity. --Michael C. Price talk 11:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, please kindly answer the following questions with "yes" and "no" only: (1) Is HUP an integral part of QM? (2) Is it true that every time Bohr defended his arguments against Einstein he used HUP to show Einstein's errors? (3) Is it true that it was recently shown that HUP does not ALWAYS enforce BPC (theoretically suggested by Scully et al. and experimentally verified by Rempe et al)? (4) Is it not likely that those who made the claims in the disputed text (Motl, Unruh and others including yourself) were not aware of the distinction between HUP and BPC at the time? (I have direct evidence from the Blogs and Wiki archives that you did not know about the distinction before I brought it up.) P.S. Another important distinction that needs tobe made is the deterministic QM formalism on wavfunction Unitary evolution, and the quantum measurement theory involving the abrupt collapse of the wavefunction, but that's another bag of worms I'm writing an invited paper on for a pedagogical physics journal. -- Prof. Afshar 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes, no; none of which contradicts or is relevant to the point I made: complementarity is derived from the formalism, not the formalism from complementary. Complementarity is not imposed on the formalism. What part of the wave-equation is altered by BPC???? --Michael C. Price talk 13:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Afshar's position is not that complementarity alters the formalism. On the contrary, no one in this discussion seems to question that the formalism always gives the correct result, in particular that the outcome of Afshar's experiment is consistent with the formalism. I think he is saying that BPC is derived from the formalism plus additional assumptions. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) --Art Carlson 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And what additional assumptions are those? --Michael C. Price talk 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The assumption that you can not observe the paradox, if I understand correctly. Basically BPC is meant to allow us to avoid concluding a paradox. BPC becomes irelevant should an experiment allow us to observe the paradox. If it were logically impossible for an experiment to disprove the valididty of BPC, then BPC would not be falsifiable. However it can be seen that it is logically possible for an experiment to demonstrate a violation of BPC by simply demonstrating the precise paradox that BPC otherwise allows us to escape. The paradox in question is a photon passing through both holes to cause interference while also appearing to have come from only one hole. The statement being debated here has no relevance to Afshar's claims, because it is not actually stating anything that contributes to the argument. In fact, this statement suggests that violation of BPC would mean violation of the QM formalism, which it seems fairly apparently not to be the case. What is relevant is the question of whether Afshar's experiment does in fact demonstrate the paradox. If it does, then BPC is violated. This can happen and still leave the rest of the formalism intact, but incomplete. Dndn1011 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Art is completely correct in that I believe there are "additional" false assumptions that led to Bohr et al.'s error. The assumptions are: (i)NECESSITY for irreversible collapse/decoherence of the wavefucntion upon detection of the photon in ensemble spatial distributions such as the Interference pattern i.e. the need for destructive measurement for ensemble properties, and (ii) the NECESSITY for a collapse/decoherence to take place in order to make a measurement. In my experiments the wires make a classic measurement without a "quantum measurement"(i.e. the kind of measurement that causes the collapse of the wavefucntion) which I have termed "Contextual Null Measurement" (see my Perimeter Institute talk for more details.) The major assumption up until my experiment was that any kind of measurement causes either decoherence, or collapse of the wavefucntion. I have shown this assumption to be at variance with QM formalism (see section 3.3 of http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701027) and experimental results (all three published papers). -- Prof. Afshar 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Once again, completely wrong: decoherence does not make the assumption of wavefunction collapse. Decoherence theory explains how the appearance of wavefunction collapse emerges from the formalism.--Michael C. Price talk 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are completely wrong, but hardly alone. It seems to be en vogue to believe that decoherence explains collapse. I think it doesn't (and I am willing to wager that Prof. Afshar agrees with me). But it doesn't matter what either of us believes. The important thing is to understand that there are (at least) two ways of looking at decoherence, so, if it is relevant to the article and they are attributable, we should report both of them. --Art Carlson 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Every one's entitled to their own belief when it comes to wavefunction collapse; what is clear, though, is that those researchers who worked on decoherence (such as Wojciech H. Zurek) developed it to explain collapse. --Michael C. Price talk 23:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As a physicist, I see both HUP and BPC as convenient shorthand that becomes unuseable when push comes to shove. How can we resolve a bet of whether either concept is violated in an experiment? The only way is with a mathematical formulation where the deltas in the HUP are precisely defined and BPC is expressed in terms of the Greenberger-Yasin inequality. For this reason, the latter inequality needs to find its way back into the article, either in this section or another. --Art Carlson 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Again I fully agree with Art. BTW/ it would be nice to change the name of the article on the duality relation to a more factual name as "Greenberger-Yasin inequality." I think Englert himself had voiced some conternation on that Wiki article. -- Prof. Afshar 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree the Greenberger-Yasin inequality should find it's way back into the article. --Michael C. Price talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is quite depressing to see the state of confusion regarding collapse and decoherence. Decoherence is just that, loss of coherence in a wavefcuntion that leads to loss of interference effects and nulls in the off-diagonals. It is quite possible to have a collapse of the wavefunction in a coherent state, as you see when a photon is observed in a bright fringe. The wavefunction disappears completely (collapses) yet superposition state is observed in an irreversible manner. I think the confusion has been caused by two different uses of the term collapse. In short, collapse is not the same as decoherence. -- Prof. Afshar 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the level of confusion is quite depressing. The collapse of a coherent photon is still caused by decoherence -- the decoherence is present in the device that measures the photon. --Michael C. Price talk 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


The theory of decoherence is a complicated subject and I dont think that it is the aim of this wiki page to discuss in details this here. However I agree with Carlson the decoherence is only relevant here if asar mention it as a active part of the interpretation of his own experiment. In general this is something which should be change in the page i think: One should in this wiki project first find (after the introduction) a section describing the actual facts (i.e., the set-up and the results) and secondly a section presenting the interpretation and the potential consequences. Finally at the end a section further readings would be advicable. this last section should be without any quote (a list including article preprint is more than enough ).

PS: for Afshar concerning the duality formula the name that you prefer is not relevant because in general this formula is very often called with different names (Englert, Grenberger-Yasin, Wooters-Zurek, and others... ) Drezet 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more quotes by Bohr, in the same vicinity as the one quoted.

"In a lecture on that occasion, I advocated a point of view conveniently termed "complementarity," suited to embrace the characteristic features of individuality of quantum phenomena, and at the same time to clarify the peculiar aspects of the observational problem in this field of experience."
"For this purpose, it is decisive to recognise that, however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms."
"It must here be remembered that even in the indeterminacy relation we are dealing with an implication of the formalism which defies unambiguous expression in words suited to describe classical physical pictures."

While these quotes are quite inadequate for a full understanding of complementarity, they do help to illustrate that Bohr is talking about something in addition to HUP, and the formalism.

"While the combination of these concepts into a single picture of a causal chain of events is the essence of classical mechanics, room for regularities beyond the grasp of such a description is just afforded by the circumstance that the study of the complementary phenomena demands mutually exclusive experimental arrangements. "

--Carl A Looper 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not too illuminating, unfortunately. On the basis of these statements alone, I can't discern if Bohr thought that complementarity is a consequence of the formalism or something additional to it. --Art Carlson 08:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Not too illuminating, but it is indicative (without a full eassy) to get an idea. One should try to read the full account from which these quotes are extracted for a better idea. But in case one does not do this I'm hoping that give an idea. For example:
"It must here be remembered that even in the indeterminacy relation we are dealing with an implication of the formalism which defies unambiguous expression in words suited to describe classical physical pictures."
Note the phrase "... even in the indeterminacy relation ...", in which Bohr is citing such -ie. bringing it into the discussion, in order to show the difficultys involved in using classical concepts to describe the overall situation. But a classical (or semi-classical) account is what he is hoping to demonstrate is, at least, partially possible. He is arguing, in spite of the ambiguitys, (not becasue of them) that a semi-classical description is still possible. And it will be the principle of complementarity that will provide for this possibility. I am not saying this is evident in the pargaraph cited but I am encouraging anyone with questions here to actually read Bohr if they want to get the drift of what I'm saying here.
--Carl A Looper 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
We should not remove or exclude material just because Bohr's statements are not crystal clear. It's the nature of QM and complementarity -- as Bohr observed -- to be confusing! --Michael C. Price talk 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Nowhere does Bohr say QM is "confusing". The ambiguitys about which he is speaking concern the way in which aspects of QM can not be rendered in a classical manner - ie. in an unambiguous manner. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for "regularities beyond the grasp of such a description " :
"room for regularities beyond the grasp of such a description is just afforded by the circumstance that the study of the complementary phenomena demands mutually exclusive experimental arrangements." --Carl A Looper 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are unaware of Bohr's pronoucement that if you're not confused by QM you haven't understood it? --Michael C. Price talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It is only those those who claim to understand quantum physics who do not understand it. For example, those who misquote Bohr. I'd also add that those who want to be confused by QM will always be confused. Which one are you? --Carl A Looper 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
How have I misquoted Bohr? --Michael C. Price talk 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Bohr is not here to comment an Afshar's experiment, thus to include material from Bohr requires arguments to be presented that link the ideas of Bohr to the experiment's interpretation. However this can not be done in this article. To do so is to introduce original research. If Bohr were able to make comments on the experiment now, these comments, however unclear, would to attributable to him, so no problem. However the application of things Bohr said a long time ago to this experiment requires an interpretation by some third party. In this case that party is you Michael. This is also fine, providing such interpretation is attributable according to wikipedia policy. I suspect that you can not provide such attributable sources. Dndn1011 10:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, observe the statement by Bohr "For this purpose, it is decisive to recognise that, however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms.". This is key to understanding Bohr. What he is saying here is that it does not matter how much the nature of the universe transcends classical physical explanations (i.e. is an extension of classical interpretations), we must account for all evidence in classical terms. There is a major assumption. The assumption that any explanations of the nature of universe must be explained in terms of classical concepts. What if that assumption is wrong? And what is there to actually support this assumption? BPC was created to allow us to maintain this classical explanation without facing the which-way / interference paradox, because if we can not measure the paradox then it is not important. If Afshar's experiment allows us to measure the paradox then Bohr's argument falls apart. It is no longer possible to account for all evidence in classical terms. Dndn1011 10:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So, when I present statements from Bohr they are not admissible, but when you present statements from Bohr they are? --Michael C. Price talk 10:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Er no, I am not trying to present statements from Bohr in the article. In this talk page we are both equally able to submit arguments about the article. It is your presentation of statements from Bohr both in the in the talk page and in the article I have countered with my own presentation of statements from Bohr in the talk page only. The purpose of me doing so is to get the presented statements from Bohr in the article removed for the reasons I have stated, i.e. Bohr may have said them but their application to this experiment represents OR. Additionally, there is no patently clear, unarguable case for making the connection, which I am attempting to demonstrate with my counter arguments in the talk page. I believe neither my arguments nor yours should appear in the article, but this discussion is never-the-less necessary in order to advance concenus on the article itself. I hope that clarifies everything. Dndn1011 11:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is in principle legitimate, but it's getting out of hand. My tally is: 4 editors favoring deletion, one lonely sole favoring retention, and 200 lines of discussion. I propose that the mediator delete the passage in question while putting understandable, accurate, and attributable comments about the connection between HUP and BPC in relation to the Afshar experiment on the To-Do list. --Art Carlson 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AGREED Dndn1011 13:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
DISAGREE Wikipedia is not a democracy --Michael C. Price talk 13:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Nor is it a platform for every individual view. Dndn1011 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we should debating the issues here, not performing a head count of people struggling to understand physics. The formalism of non-relativistic quantum mechanics was finished by c 1927. Complementary, c 1930+, was -- as Bohr said -- an attempt at a description of what the formalism models precisely. Complementarity's development had no impact or feedback onto the formalism. The HUP and other complementarity-related topics can be derived from the formalism; they are not required as separate, additional assumptions.--Michael C. Price talk 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


While someone here is implying he has given up on understanding physics it is not the case that anyone else here should likewise do so. Bohr is difficult but he is not impossible. The principle of complementarity concerns the way in which the "regularitys" otherwise associated with classical concepts can be extended, if only partially, into the quantum theoretical domain. The back traced path function, for example, is a classical function one can use under certain conditions. This idea is impossible to do with the formalism alone. The "god plays dice" concept of quantum theory is not embodied in the quantum theoretical formalism (for obvious reasons). One needs the physical version of this concept in order to instantiate a back trace on a particle detection. One can employ pseudo-noise functions in a computer simulation but these functions are just that - pseudo noise functions. --Carl A Looper 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Break it up! Dndn1011 and Michael C. Price! Stop fighting! Now, how about this suggestion: We keep the quote from Bohr, because it is sourced and relevant. We are not here to pick a fight with Niels Bohr. The following rhetorical question can be thrown out, unless it is a quote from either of the three references. If it is not a quote, then it seems to be an original analysis of published works, something that qualifies as OR. Also, the rhetorical question seems to be the text at issue, rather than the quote from Niels Bohr. So again, how about we remove only the rhetorical question, as it is most inflammatory part of this debated piece, and it is also OR. What do you think? Sdirrim 17:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I am out of here. The only one who wanted to keep the reference is Price, and now you are ignoring the voice of the majority. Additionally you are telling me to stop fighting when I have only presented reasonable arguments. My faith in the mediator is now lost and I am frankly tired of this mess. By all means keep the irrelevant reference, and additionally if presenting well reasoned arguments in a non disrespectful way by me is suddenly to be called fighting, than I shall stop fighting by ceasing my contributions altogether. I have had enough. Dndn1011 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said, improve not delete; reformulating the question as a statement is okay with me. The pertinent points are 1) what Bohr said 2) the formalism is obeyed by the experiment 3) what other people have said (such as Unruh) on the subject of the formalism and complementarity in the experiment. --Michael C. Price talk 17:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you support including my rebuttals as well? If not, it would be a violation of NPOV. -- Prof. Afshar 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If your unpublished, unpeer-reviewed rebuttals are allowed then there can be no question that Unruh's, Motl's at al criticisms are also allowed. --Michael C. Price talk 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. A rebuttal is a response to someone e.g. Motl, Unruh, etc. If you put those quotations, then I should be able to respond, otherwise, neither their quotes, nor my rebuttal have any place in the article. Please clarify what you mean. Maybe Mediator can help here?-- Prof. Afshar 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the rebuttals need to be peer-reviewed and published -- otherwise we are opening the floodgates to OR. What is it to be? --Michael C. Price talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Any material included in the article must be sourced. However, the rhetorical question is not directly sourced. Rather, it is a paraphrasing of a point made by Unruh (I believe), and thus is an "original analysis of published work" and is therefore OR. By Wikipedia guidelines, the quote needs to be removed. It may be replaced, but that is debatable. A counter-point sourced from a peer-reviewed and published work may also be included. But the rhetorical statement should be removed. Sdirrim 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The rhetorical question was my paraphrasing of Unruh's, Motl's etc, criticisms. My understanding is that paraphrasing counts as reporting and does not violate OR? If you agree then I will recast the question as a statement and we can debate the content. Do you agree that this is a way forward? --Michael C. Price talk 08:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar can consider writing a paper specifically to respond to the criticisms of various people, including Danko's latest published paper, and put it on ArXiv.org. This Wikipedia article can then quote from that paper - I think that would be fair. --Tabish q 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Tabish, so you consider "Progress in Physics" a reputable journal in physics? This is a journal with Smarandache on its editorial board who believes there is an "INTERNATIONAL MAFIA IN SCIENCE" who has blacklisted him from the arXiv. He also believes "There is no speed barrier in the universe and one can construct arbitrary speeds" a clear violation of special relativity. Such utter garbage as "Measurement of the Earth's Absolute Velocity" by Stefan Marinov ("inventor" of perpetual motion machines) is published in "Progress in Physics", that even hinting at publishing there would be a death blow to one's career in the US. I advise you to check the background of the sources you consider reliable before you announce them here. I'm afraid in this case, the cure is worse than the disease, although I must say Danko's paper is an apt addition to the collection, especially when authors have to pay for their "papers" to be published there. I hope you do not wish to publish your paper in "Progress in Physics", but then again...-- Prof. Afshar 07:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Smarandache_F/0/1/0/all/0/1

       1. math.GM/0702536 [abs, pdf] : 
          Title: Bases of Solutions for Linear Congruences
          Authors: Florentin Smarandache 

          2. math.GM/0702488 [abs, pdf] : 
          Title: Algorithms for Solving Linear Congruences and Systems of Linear Congruences
          Authors: Florentin Smarandache


          3. math.GM/0702343 [abs, pdf] : 
          Title: Linguistic-Mathematical Statistics in Rebus, Lyrics, Juridical Texts, Fancies and Paradoxes
          Authors: Florentin Smarandache

                                       ...Danko Georgiev MD 10:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Afshar, I think we are not here to discuss the reputablity of journals. Did anybody ask you why you did not publish your work in Phys.Rev. or Eurphys. Lett. or Phys. Lett.? And as far as my publishing is concerned, I am not sure I want to publish in Found. Phys. too (unless there is dire need! ;-) ). As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a peer-reviewed journal is enough. -- Tabish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.224.81.1 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Dear Tabesh, "As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a peer-reviewed journal is enough." Not true! It depends on whether the "peers" are reliable. A journal that publishes papers that violate special relativity is a sure sign of the type of referees it has. Publication in this journal is also a clear indication of the type of author it attracts. No self-respecting physicist would even refer to "Progress in Physics" let alone publish there. And as to your desire not to publish in Found. Phys. all I can say is that you may have reason to stay away from the community of Nobel laureates; well I don't. -- Prof. Afshar 13:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Afshar, I had pointed out two papers, one of which "showed" a violation of the uncertainty principle, and the other "showed" the resolution of the quantum measurement problem. You seem to have conveniently forgotten where they were published.

And seeing the references posted by some kind soul below, the "inventor of perpetual motion machine" does publish in Foundation of Physics! Seriously Afshar, please stop being so biased against individuals. --Tabish q 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tabish, the poor soul committed suicide in 1997 apparently because his perpetual motion designs failed to work (see SCHNEEBERGER's note). Marinov published some legitimate papers nearly 20 years before his passing as shown below, but then he pushed some patently cranky ideas later on which led to his ostracism by the scientific community. As sad a story of his tragic death happens to be, nonetheless he was aptly regarded as a pseudo-scientist and the publication of his utterly error-filled manuscript in Progress in Physics is a clear demonstration of the kind of crackpottery they publish. No physicist can regard Progress in Physics as anything but a fringe, and misguided adventure by a few outsiders, who are not taken seriously by the mainstream physics community whom its editor considers as “Mafia”-like conspirators. If you believe otherwise, then you must share their values, and therefore their pitfalls. I’m glad our views on this matter are on the record here. As for bias, I am not biased against individuals, but rather the legitimacy of their claims, which can be safely gauged by the type of company they keep. -- Prof. Afshar 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
       Stefan Marinov. The coordinate transformations of the absolute space-time theory 
       FOUNDATION OF PHYSICS 1979; 9(5-6): 445-460; DOI 10.1007/BF00708535
       ARTICLE
       
       Stefan Marinov. The light Doppler effect treated by absolute spacetime theory 
       FOUNDATION OF PHYSICS 1978; 8(7-8): 637-652; DOI 10.1007/BF00717587 
       ARTICLE

Danko Georgiev MD 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Under a principle of complementarity Bohr introduces ideas not otherwise implicit in the quantum theoretical formalism. In particular is the idea that "regularitys" otherwise associated with classical physics (eg. the path of a particle) can be partially deployed in the quantum theoretical domain.

Nowhere does Bohr suggest a retrospective path function is in anyway derived from, or limited by the formalism itself. Our only limit is whether we can actually construct such a function, ie. whether we can actually draw an unambiguous path, from a particle detection, back to an aperture (ie. a single aperture).

Furthermore, it is not the formalism which necessarily suggests, implys or otherwise imposes on us that a setup, which allows such a retrospectively constructed path function, is also a setup which prevents us from demonstrating the wave function.

But it is definitley Bohr who does suggest this.

And it is this idea, otherwise understood as "Bohr's principle of complementarity", which the Afshar experiment challenges.

If Michael thinks this idea belongs to the formalism then it is Michael who must answer the rhetorical question. How does the Afshar experiment both violate the formalism (ie. the idea under challenge) and not violate the formalism?

The only answer is that they are not the same thing.

--Carl A Looper 08:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused by what the formalism is. You don't need the BPC to generate empirical predictions from QM -- that's what the formalism is there to do. The BPC is there to help us grasp or understand what's going on in terms of classical or pseudo-classical concepts. --Michael C. Price talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Michael, I am not confused by the formalism at all. I realise your recurrent fallback position (to fictionalise critics of your position as "confused") might seem entirely justified to you but repeatedly telling yourself this won't help you in the long run. The formalism itself represents the fundamental structure of signals otherwise implied in the data produced by actual experiments. It is given an "a priori" status by virtue of it's implicit fundamentalism. However the formalism does not, (and can not) embody the complete de-scription of an experiment. The formalism is a pre-scription. And as you say, you don't need BPC to pre-scribe the outcome of experiments - as that is the role of the formalism (it defines the formalism). The idea that BPC helps us to interpret the formalism is justified. But BPC is also MORE than this. It introduces ideas in addition to the formalism. And (with deep regret) I have argued in the past (if you go back through the history of this talk page) precisely something similar to what you are currently arguing - that Bohr is merely interpreting the formalism - in classical terms for an audience incapable of thinking in any other way. And that Heisenberg was doing the same thing. But on further reflection I found that this was not entirely justified - was not entirely true. In fact, could not be true at all. Bohr was not just a psuedo semi-classicist. He was a real one. If Bohr was aware that the formalism might impose limits on the very possibility of a post measurement classical path nowhere does he provide a warning in this respect. One would always find (incorrectly) that any actual setup which allowed a constructable post-measurement path function occured only in setups in which the wave function was prevented from being demonstrated. This is was not just a metaphor for the classical mind. It is (or was) supposed to be a fundamental principle, ie. a principle without exception. A precisely defined IDEA. And that IDEA is precisely what you find embodied in the Yasin Greenberger formula. --Carl A Looper 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Carl, I said you were confused because you rhetorically asked me How does the Afshar experiment both violate the formalism (ie. the idea under challenge) and not violate the formalism?. The simple answer is that the experiment does not violate the formalism. As for what we are now calling the Yasin Greenberger formula, I have no problem with it being mentioned in the article; as I pointed out, each individual photon obeys the duality relation. It was Linas who saw fit to remove this statement from the article, not me. --Michael C. Price talk 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok Michael, perhaps we are emerging from the deadlock in which we've been engaged. The simple answer, as you say, is that the experiment does not violate the formalism. That's exactly right. It is due to misunderstandings that the experiment has been framed this way - as if it was claiming to violate the formalism. The result has been ongoing inherent confusion - as embodied by my rhetorical question. But the experiment violates that aspect of complementarity otherwise embodied in the Yasin Greenberger formula. The YG formula itself is not at issue. The formula provides a precise mathematical definition of Bohr's IDEA. It is a formula anyone can derive from a close reading of Bohr. And it is this IDEA (Bohr's idea) which the Afshar experiment challenges. --Carl A Looper 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that we all seem to agree that the formalism is not violated in the experiment. Whether it also violates some aspect of complementarity is the crux of the claim which is disputed. --Michael C. Price talk 08:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Michael. As far as Prof Afshar goes, the formalism has never been in dispute - it is only the claim that complementarity and the formalism are equivilant that re-renders the formalism as in dispute. But who is providing that argument? Not Prof Afshar. You are. Or you have been. Or you want to. Basically, if your postulate was correct (that complementarity and the formalism are equivalent) then you would need to show how the formalism is violated by the Afshar experiment. Otherwise it is not the formalism being violated. It is something else - call it what you will - a figment of our collective imagination, but otherwise understood as derived from what Bohr has written. In the long run it doesn't even matter whether Bohr authored this idea or not. It is an idea that exists and is demonstrated, by the experiment, as a not very good idea. Irregardless of who authored it. However, the idea does not belong to me, you, Prof Afshar or anyone else. It is an idea that been floating around since Bohr wrote about his ideas - about a principle of complementarity. It has an existence in the realm of ideas and is (without an essay) merely stated here that Bohr invokes this idea in thost texts which otherwise constitute what we otherwise call Bohr's Principle of Complementarity. --Carl A Looper 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never said the formalism and BPC are equivalent. As for whether the experiment obeys the formalism: this has been questioned by other people, not me and perhaps not Afshar.--Michael C. Price talk 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, ok then. Then vote for deletion of the rhetorical question. Because that is what is being implied by such - it is implying that an experiment which fails to violate the formalism, is an experiment which fails to violate complementarity. --Carl A Looper 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the implication stays because that is precisely the implication that Unruh and others are making. And correctly so, IMO. --Michael C. Price talk 11:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You claim you've "never said that BPC and the formalism are equivalent" (see above). Ok. Then perhaps you should say so. Otherwise, how do you propose maintaining the claim (of yourself and others) that a failure to violate the formalism is equivalent with a failure to violate BPC? --Carl A Looper 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is basic logic: Formalism => complementary does not imply complementary => formalism.--Michael C. Price talk 07:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's right Michael. They do not commute. --Carl A Looper 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Equivalence (<=>) commutes, implication (=>) does not. The formalism and complementarity are not equivalent even though the formalism implies complementarity. --Michael C. Price talk 05:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A useful analogy is the Aether. If an experiment claims to violate the concept of the Aether, the onus is not on the author of the experiment to demonstrate a violation of Relativity. The onus is on those who claim the Aether and Relativity are equivalent concepts. --Carl A Looper 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the main reason to delete the rhetorical statement is that it is an original analysis of published works, thereby qualifying as OR. In that light, it is irrelevant as to whether or not it is true. Under Wikipedia standards of content and Original Research, the rhetorical statement should not be included in this article. Sdirrim 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing of existing sources is not OR. As I said it is precisely the implication that Unruh and others are making. I agree that whether is it correct or not (although I believe it is) is irrelevant. And as I also previously said, I am happy to recast it in a non-rhetorical form. --Michael C. Price talk 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If the counter-argument is to remain deleted then so too should Michael's argument. The counter-argument is no less derived from what Bohr has written than Michael's argument. --Carl A Looper 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Which counter-argument? --Michael C. Price talk 07:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well that's one way of silencing the counter-argument. Postulate it's non existance. And I suppose we could interpret the debate here as just Michael entertaining an argument all by himself. And perhaps if I (and/or others) stopped responding to Michael's argument that would be the case. But Michael's argument is not a single voice in an otherwise silent universe. It is but one voice amongst many. Why is this vote still pending? Michael does not appear to have anything more substantial to argue in defense of his argument. Are we waiting for something of more significance to emerge in Michael's otherwise increasingly rhetorical contributions? --Carl A Looper 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I take it you're not going to tell me which counter-argument you're referring to? --Michael C. Price talk 05:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
?
The counter-argument can be argued as a postulate. The postulate is that: the formalism and complementarity are not interchangeable concepts. Now, being framed this way, as a postulate, it is not actually necessary for us to "believe" in it. We merely note that when we postulate this idea (ie. entertain it as correct) we are unable to maintain that a claim of BPC violation is interchangeable with a claim of formalism violation. And likewise, we can't maintain a claim that a failure to violate the formalism is interchangeable with a failure to violate complementarity. Keep in mind that this is just a logical result of the postulate.
But the real argument I've been putting forward is not this logic, as basic as it is. It is about what can be understood as BPC. Complementarity is not an implicit echo of the formalism. Bohr advances particular concepts under the name of "complementarity". And these are certainly interpretive but these concepts are not in any way ambiguous or a byproduct of the formalism. For example, in what way is the idea that "experiments must be defined classically" spring forth from the formalism? It doesn't. Yet is a central part of complementarity. Indeed, it is through experiments, defined classically, that the formalism itself becomes constructable in the first place. Or that's how Bohr can be understood. But even if this were not the case, (ie. postulating it the other way) then the reverse question remains. How does the formalism produce this idea? Or more specifically, since we're talking about BPC, how would you use Bohr to answer this question?
So simply put, on purely logical grounds there is a counter-argument. And on more substantial grounds - there is more to Bohr's complementarity than a mere echo of the formalism. And on the basis of both these propositions one can understand how BPC can be challenged without challenging the formalism. And that's before we've even challenged BPC!!! --Carl A Looper 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Classical concepts (such as Newton's second law) emerge from the formalism via Ehrenfest's theorem. And wavefunction collapse emerges from decoherence. So complementarity is an echo of the formalism. --Michael C. Price talk 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The collapse of a decoherent wave function is no more formalised by the formalism than the collapse of a coherent wave function. --Carl A Looper 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like you understand decoherence; no matter, that wasn't the central issue. I note that you avoided commenting on the emergence of classical concepts, such as Newton's laws of motion, from Ehrenfest's theorem, which is part of the formalism of QM. --Michael C. Price talk 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read Zurek and others and have no problem following their argument. That doesn't mean I must agree with it. Disagreeing with something is not necessarily the same as confusion. I might say that decoherence theory is confused but I'll leave that for another day. Also, classical concepts emerge within classical thought. Our capacity to theorise alternative modes of emergance - eg. through non-classical means is useful but doesn't change anything. BPC says nothing about this mode of derivation. When BPC speaks of classical concepts should we really be interpreting it as meaning non-classically theorised classicism? This is not to say we can't entertain neo-rationalist fantasms. But can we attribute such to Bohr? --Carl A Looper 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What relevance does this speculation have with regards to improving the proposed text? BTW Bohr and Ehrenfest were particularly close, so Bohr undoubtly draw on Ehrenfest's theorem from the 1920s in developing his ideas on complementarity.--Michael C. Price talk 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The only speculation I can see demonstrated here is in attributing a fundamental aspect of Bohr's principle of complementarity to Ehrenfest. Perhaps you are onto something. It's always possible. But it is hardly proved on the basis that they knew each other. Do you know any other reason why Bohr felt might have felt correct application of the formalism was dependant on a full and unambiguous specification of experiments in classical terms? I mean, other than he knew Ehrenfest and therefore must have appropriated the idea from him? To answer this question requires understanding how one might specify an experiment in non-classical terms - and how one might do so without introducing the formalism as part of the specification. Any guesses? Any math you can dig up? Or literature? It can be done. But can you do it? --Carl A Looper 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a rewrite that addresses the previous objections: it entirely sourced, with the exception of one sentence which links the statements by the founding and modern commmentators -- and that sentence is enirely couched in the language of Bohr's quote.

Proposed text start:

  • Niels Bohr stated "a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[1]
In this view, since the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), they can be described by Bohr's principle of complementarity. Cf:
  • "I think Bohr would have had no problem whatsoever with this experiment within his interpretation. Nor would any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is simply another manifestation of the admittedly strange, but utterly comprehensible (it can be calculated with exquisite precision), nature of quantum mechanics."[2]
  • "There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Afshar's experiment. [....] And of course, the conventional quantum mechanics is compatible with the principle of complementarity."[3]
  • "It was claimed that this experiment could be interpreted as a demonstration of a violation of the principle of complementarity in quantum mechanics. Instead, it is shown here that it can be understood in terms of classical wave optics and the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics."[4]

Proposed text end. --Michael C. Price talk 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exit Stage Left

I give up. I see little hope of this article ever being properly finished, and it is clear that certain elements will insist in continuing their OR campaigns. Price, congratulations. Your delusions have seen me off. I have removed these pages from my watch list. If you want me to receive any further communications, please do so via my talk page. Dndn1011 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dndn1011, please take a break instead of completely leaving. Wikipedia needs constant vigilance, and tonnes of patience. I know Price can be very difficult sometimes, but I cannot criticize him for expressing his views the best he can. I believe he is sincere albeit a little harsh at times. As far I can tell, he really sees things as he expresses them. Mediator, Dndn1011 has been making good progress here, and I would appreciate if you could call him back to participate in the editorial process. -- Prof. Afshar 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that Afshar is now assuming good faith; I have always assumed likewise of everybody here. It's a shame that Dndn1011 did not do likewise. --Michael C. Price talk 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"I have always assumed likewise of everybody here" says MP. And then stabs dndn in the back. --Carl A Looper 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not stabbing in the back to point out that someone was not assuming good faith.--Michael C. Price talk 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you won't mind if I reproduce here, your assumptions of "good faith" concerning Prof Afshar (in your previous contributions to the talk page). Not that I can speak, but then I don't go around claiming the moral high ground on this issue. --Carl A Looper 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're trying to make a point, make it. --Michael C. Price talk 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How about both of you discontinue this pointless and aggravating discussion? Neither of you are helping, and only serving to create further strife. Sdirrim 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concern regarding Danko's increasingly worrisome behavior

I am beginning to fear the negative consequences of Danko Georgiev's behavior both for himself and others. His recent edits here, and vandalism in my Userpage in which he says "I have seen the "New Scientist" NEW PROPAGANDA "Quantum rebellion wins", however in my opinion this is just the beginning of the Afshar's falldown." is extremely worrisome. His unhealthy obsession with me and my work is at best unacceptable, and at worst dangerous, and I wish to have other editors and Wikipedia administrators as wells as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales know that I am taking this issue very seriously. He needs to banned immediately. Other remedies may be necessary. I would appreciate the appropriate action taken by editors, the Mediator and admins. Something must be done, and soon. Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Take it up with the administrator. As you (should) know, my "power" here is solely limited to whatever agreements are made to respect my decisions. I have no formal authority. In addition, I must try to remain neutral, but feel free to refer the matter to the administrators. Sdirrim 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you suggest an admin? -- Prof. Afshar 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar's contributionsDanko Georgiev MD 15:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] OR tag

I have posted an OR tag on the section suggesting the lack of which-way information due to the fact that the assertion has not been published in a reputable peer-reviewed source. This article has a large number of non-expert visitors and OR in this section is highly misleading. Mediator, please take action on the removal of that section ASAP. Thank you. -- Prof. Afshar 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, as you know, you should not be making any edits to the article; as previously discussed, you are too close the subject. Ask here, by all means, but let others act.--Michael C. Price talk 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted Afshar's change. Aside from the personal involvement issue, shouldn't we making changes only with the mediator's approval? Isn't that what we all agreed awhile back? Making a change and then calling on the mediator to endorse is not really correct, for anyone. --Michael C. Price talk 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Michael, in the absence of the Mediator, I would appreciate if you could "act" when it gets too stagnant. The article is misleading and needs to be corrected ASAP. There needs to be a timely and decisive Mediation process; otherwise errors linger on and responsible editors leave the discussion in the hands of OR pushers. Thanks. P.S. For the record, I only placed an OR warning tag, no other "changes" were made.-- Prof. Afshar 10:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No one disputes that "the article is misleading and needs to be corrected ASAP", but we all disagree about the remedy. Non-consenual changes are going to get us nowhere. I suggest patience and talking everything out, as we are currently doing. The stagnant nature of article is actually a good sign that we are using the talk page in preference to revert warring. P.S. yes the OR tag is only a little change, but an important one. Rather than single out any particular section, perhaps we should OR the whole article, since there is no agreement about which parts are particularly OR?--Michael C. Price talk 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael is right. We know that the article needs to be changed, we just argue about what needs to happen. How about another idea: We all focus on one change at a time. Address one issue, then move on, rather than arguing on 4, 5, 6, and Danko. It is easier for me to follow, and it will make a lot more sense. For the sake of easiness, how about we all focus on Piece 4, at the bottom of the talk page as reposted by Afshar? Sdirrim 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
By all means let's tackle #4. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Afshar, If you and other editors want to delete huge portions of the article, I personally don't care, and even I will not vote against the suggested by you changes, as I have quited this discussion. However I have my ultimate human right to post on any page where I am allowed access, in cases where personal offences against me, or other people are posted with aim of derogating their basic human rights and human dignity. So I do not agree that my name is invoked in text passages containing insults, while at the same time I even did not participate in the discussion. So just two facts
        Georgiev D. D.
        Single Photon Experiments and Quantum Complementarity  ARTICLE 
         Progress In Physics 2007; 2: 97-103

The mentioned above article officially describes Unruh's setup, Mach-Zehnder interferometer, and Afshar's setup.

Concerning S. Marinov's paper in the previous volume of PP, it is posthumous re-print of work published early in his carrier. The paper is submitted by Marinov's friend and is to be considered as a tribute to his tragic death [10 years since 1997]. The theory is exactly the one published in Foundations of Physics 1978-1979, on absolute space-time theory. I would like to ask you not to offend people who has not direct relation to you, and who you interprete as having involved in promoting my work, etc., etc. Please do not search in internet the first material that you see, and then draw firm conclusions about people. Danko Georgiev MD 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to report to you that the Marinov affair, and his tragic suicide as a direct result of his alienation by the mainstream academia is well-known. As much as I empathize with his difficult circumstances, working as a horse groomer and conducting experiments in his girlfriend's apartment, there is no question about the fact that he was firmly and correctly rebuffed by the academia and referees due to clear violations of the known physical laws he advocated. Indeed, feeling his pain, I shed tears over his heart-wrenching description of the rejections, while fully agree with the referees reasoning. None of what I have said is an insult, it is simply a recounting of the fact that such fully-rejected ideas have been published in the same journal you have published in; a journal whose editor believes there is scientific Mafia against him. Any reasonable person can draw his/her conclusions regarding the reliability of the publication (Progress in Physics) as regards OR in WIkipedia. -- Prof. Afshar 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
dear mr georgiev congratulation fo your paper even it is a sad day for physics (i will even not spend time to recuse such kind of argumentations). However i would like to mention that in principle you have absolutly no right for using a picture created by me ( see arxiv ) without asking me or at least without mentionning the source. You should know that in principle i could complain to the editor. Two solutions: 1) either you send kindly a message by your self to the editor to change the picture ( very difficult ) or to add my reference in the legend (easier), or, 2), I do it myself :this is less pleasant for you and for me. Please act promptly and explain yourself

PS you should be less lazy the next time and create a picture by your self or ask some one for that Drezet 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Drezet, I hope the issue is resolved, so you post new message in confirmation that the confusion is resolved. I have NOT used your arXiv figure, I have used figure from WIKIPEDIA released under GNU free documentation license, so I have even modified the graphics under GFDL. You have agreed to this when releasing your image in Wikipedia, so I can refer to the GFDL licence even without asking you for permission. One can use Wikipedia under GFDL without asking permission any of the contributors to Wikipedia, as they have agreed to the Wiki-policy they have released their work for free, and also for merciless editing by others. One when releasing something in Wikipedia, cannot after that blame that others have modified and used in certain way his release without asking him, this is Wiki-policy so if one does not like, then he does not contribute to Wikipedia. Kind Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Mediator - Probation for Afshar

Dear Mediator, I have peacefully have retracted myself from this discussion, where reserving my ultimate right to post reply only in such cases in order not to allow for someone to personally offend me [or if needed not to offend anyone else]. I have been out of the discussion, yet Afshar did not stop with his offences. Afshar continued on posting insult after insult on my personality. Why? What he wants? Are all these insults somehow linked at improving the main text of the article? Why the other wiki-editors do not take measures to warn now Afshar that he has crossed the limits. Let's have the same measures for all participants in the discussion, and let's not allow for doubled standards. Please vote to put Afshar on probation for usage of personal insults. If he uses again personal attacks and insults, as part of his argumentation, he must be banned from Wikipedia. So I vote that Afshar be put on probation for usage of personal insults, which means that from now on Afshar shall be banned for breaking the probabition, if Afshar posts one or more messages where personal attack or insult is present. The personal insults should not be considered only these addressed to me, but for any person, dead or alive, who may have or may not have any link to the discussed here experiment. PUT ON PROBATION for repeated usage of personal attacks Danko Georgiev MD 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your accusation of personal insult by me while you have been on probation. You are the one who have called me "maniac", "charlatan", and predicted my "falldown," (while on probation mind you) projecting insult after insult without restraint. You seem to be incapable of carrying a civil discourse and I am not the kind of person who simply absorbs the kinds of antics you have been spewing on wiki pages, which has led to your current probation. Even my critics have chastised your despicable behavior. At any rate, the bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where objectivity is supposed to rule. You have posted OR in the article, using unreliable sources, and expect no one to react? That's an impossible proposition. Please respect the terms of your probation which you have now broken. Mediator please kindly take action by removing the OR from the article. Thank you.-- Prof. Afshar 06:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not used "maniac", and "charlatan", during the probation period you talk. So you post false statement in order to derogate me. Several false statements about other scientists has been posted by you also - prof. Smarandache is not blacklisted by ArXiv, as you can see all his recent uploads from Feb 2007. And Here is the evidence that you have insulted me, while I was not been involved in the discussion.
Removed vandalism by a crackpot
Disreputable journal
Regression in Physics

All these derogatory and insulting attacks on my personality can be seen by anyone, by date and hour and minutes, here: Afshar's contributions. I have not violated anything, I have my human right to object your un-ethical behavior, so I have started this vote for your probation, and possible future banning. Danko Georgiev MD 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry Danko, but you won't be getting off that easy this time. You say: "I have not used "maniac", and "charlatan", during the probation period you talk.": Well, thank you for being so kind as to have resisted your urge to call me those derogatory names while on probation, however, you conveniently disregard the fact that only "falldown" was qualified with the parentheses "(while on probation mind you)". As for Smarandache, he himself states that he has been blacklisted from the arxiv for submitting physics papers, while talking about the scientific "Mafia." "Removed vandalism by a crackpot": That is the Edit summary for your vandalism of my userpage, in which you have attacked New Scientist, one of the most respected popular science magazines in the world as "NEW PROPAGANDA", and predicted my "falldown." You tell me what kind of person makes such statements while on probation. "Disreputable journal" That is a correct assessment of the reputation of the journal "Progress in Physics," and for the well-referenced reasons described above I will stand by that. "Regression in Physics" is an Edit summary for an edit describing the same journal, simply pointing out that trusting such a source as reliable would indeed constitute a "Regression in Physics," and I still stand by that as well. None of the above even compares to your direct attacks and use of foul language by you on my person. I do not wish to attack your personality, although you seem to be doing a good job at it yourself; and for all to see. P.S. I refrained from naming names in the recent NS interview article of the individuals who have personally attacked me, however, I may not be as reserved the next time around. Waiting for Mediator to enforce Dnako's probation, until then I will defend myself against his typically baseless accusations here... -- Prof. Afshar 08:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no formal authority to "enforce" anything. I am trying to keep up as best as I can, but as the sayong goes, NEHAMFTAY (Not Everyone Has As Much Free Time As You). Nor do I always have free time at the same time as you. Thus, you may see me respond in bursts: I answer a question, you ask another, and open another section, and 5 questions are unanswered, then suddenly I reappear and try to answer all five at once, then I disappear again. I will try to get this matter referred to an admi, but you should also take some action. It is any Wikipedian's prerogative to request the intervention of an admin. Sdirrim 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Mediator - get moving!

In my opinion this discussion is dragging out too long as the article remains in a relatively sorry state. I urge Sdirrim to be bolder. Otherwise I may not be able to resist the urge to be bold myself, even though that might ultimately have negative consequences. --Art Carlson 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. Hasty action will only waste time, as the history of this article shows. --Michael C. Price talk 13:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought you might see it that way. I am advocating "timely" rather than "hasty" action. --Art Carlson 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I interpreted "bold" as "hasty". --Michael C. Price talk 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I interpreted "bold" as actually implementing votes, and enforcing probation by asking the violator to cease and desist or be reported to admins. -- Prof. Afshar 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And as I said earlier, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Debate the issues. You demanded that I answer some questions with a simple yes/no. Please reciprocate. --Michael C. Price talk 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formalism

Do we all agree that

  • Afshar's experiment obeys the QM formalism?
  • issues about complementarity do not alter the adherence to the formalism?
  • Bohr envisaged complementarity as a description of processes that were precisely modelled by the formalism?

--Michael C. Price talk 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Michael, let's concentrate on the issue at hand with the obvious OR and kindly vote below. We can discuss the subtleties of your statements above after Disputed piece #4 the voting on which was aborted due to Danko's interference has been implemented. Let's wait for the Mediator to catch up. Thanks.-- Prof. Afshar 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am trying to concentrate on the issues at hand. The points I have isolated have relevance to the most of the disputed texts. Trying to tackle the disputed text sentence by sentence does not seem to be working -- I think we need to establish some general points first. --Michael C. Price talk 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The most obvious point at the movement is the fact that "There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons" and the related text below it are OR. Do you disagree? The action is simple removal of the OR text rather than the lengthy process of concocting new statements etc. which your suggested discussion would require. Please simply vote below on Disputed text #4. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you guys talk about this later? Things would go a lot faster if we brought up and addressed one change at a time, rather than arguing the theory behind this experiment? I know that it is relevant to a lot of the changes, but if we can deal with the OR first, and even then do things one at a time, we can get things done. Sdirrim 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we are not making much progress on the one-at-a-time front because there is so much confusion about the physics. Whether something is OR (i.e. whether a statement is correctly paraphrased) is often a matter of understanding the physics as well. If we can find statements that Afshar and myself (representing the two poles) agree on then we can work from there -- perhaps. --Michael C. Price talk 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree. OR, unlike groundbraking physics, has a set of definitions, and is relatively clear-cut. Furthermore, OR in the article causes accusations of bias, inappropriate refences and confusion. Therefore, I propose this. Since we are all capable of remaining reasonable in a discussion, we remove the obvious examples of OR. Then, once the "dead wood" is removed, we can begin on balancing the article with well-referenced, agreed-upon material. Sdirrim 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a genius to realise that Afshar repeatedly refuses to debate about the formalism-complementarity relationship because of the lack of any substantive input on his part on the subject. Further, since the sources here are universally regarded as valid (e.g. Bohr, Unruh), I presume we can close the chapter in this. I'll knock out a new version, with the rhetorical question rephrased, shortly for review here.--Michael C. Price talk 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I wish to discuss this issue after we resolve OR in #4 below. The Meiadtor recommended as much, and if you wish to change the text you may force and edit war. I humbly request that you refrain from taking unilateral actions. The formalism debate would take a long time for us to resolve, whereas the OR in #4 is easy to resolve if only you respond to my questions below. What hope do I have that you would be reasonable on the formalism debate, if you resist making progress on #4? Are you going to force an edit war? Mediator please get involved ASAP. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no dice, this as just a way of procrastinating indefinitely on issues you wish to avoid. Anyway, you don't have to debate the physics here, I have reformulated Bohr-on-formalism so that there is only one link sentence between Bohr's original statement and those of modern commmentators on Afshar's experiment:

Proposed text start:

  • Niels Bohr stated "a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[1]
In this view, since the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), they can be described by Bohr's principle of complementarity. Cf:
  • "I think Bohr would have had no problem whatsoever with this experiment within his interpretation. Nor would any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is simply another manifestation of the admittedly strange, but utterly comprehensible (it can be calculated with exquisite precision), nature of quantum mechanics."[2]
  • "There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Afshar's experiment. [....] And of course, the conventional quantum mechanics is compatible with the principle of complementarity."[3]
  • "It was claimed that this experiment could be interpreted as a demonstration of a violation of the principle of complementarity in quantum mechanics. Instead, it is shown here that it can be understood in terms of classical wave optics and the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics."[4]

Proposed text end. --Michael C. Price talk 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Followups to "Disputed peice #6" (sic) --Michael C. Price talk 10:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I disagree with the last proposition. Bohr regarded the formalism as a "complementary way of description". He also regarded many OTHER THINGS as a "complementary way of description" and refers to such OTHER THINGS in his discussions of complementarity. The formalism is but one example ie. amongst others. Can MP try to read beyond just one sentence in Bohr's writings. That one sentence will become more understandable if he does. --Carl A Looper 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Bohr saw complementarity everywhere, in politics, philosophy, art etc (e.g. truth and clarity he regarded as complementary). We are only interested in his views about complementarity in QM.--Michael C. Price talk 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. We're only interested in how complementarity applys to physics. To do so we must begin with a full picture of complementarity (philosophy, art, politics, language, information), ie. as articulated by Bohr, and test which aspects of complementarity (if any) are workable in terms of experimental physics. Only in this way are we speaking about Bohr's principle. --Carl A Looper 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I add that the concept of space and time has undergone a similar evolution. These concepts existed (within language, politics, philosophy etc.) for a very long time (thousands of years) and were given a priori status, and physics used these concepts for a very long time, until Einstein showed the concepts (as they existed) were a problem (required revision). The physical universe (we can assume) did not change as a result of this revision. And furthermore, we destroy history if we pretend that our ancestor's were really talking about Einstein's spacetime rather than their own. And we will run into problems doing this. If we do an experiment to challenge Newton's spacetime, but define Newton's spacetime as Einstein's spacetime, we'll just end up proving that Newton's spacetime is correct. --Carl A Looper 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Back to the improving the article: if you think I have incorrectly represented Bohr's views on the relationship between complementarity and the formalism, in QM, then find another quote -- anything else is OR.--Michael C. Price talk 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A good improvement will be to remove your interpretation of Bohr's quote. The quote is fine, but the interpretation you bring to it is OR, just as my interpretation of Bohr is OR. The quote does nothing to substantiate your claim as any more correct than mine (or anyone elses). Of course, I consider my interpretation as correct and yours as "confused", but I can understand you might see it the other way around. But just because you think I'm confused doesn't make it so. And, of course, vice versa. But you seem to be running around trying to prop up your miscellaneous statements using ever increasing speculative means. I particularly like your one in which fundamental aspects of BPC should be be attributed to Ehrenfest on the basis that Bohr and he knew each other. --Carl A Looper 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priority NUMBER ONE: revmoval of clear OR in Disputed piece #4

Dear Mediator and editors, again, I suggest that the following text be EXPEDITIOUSLY deleted from the "Specific critiques" section due to Wiki OR rules discussed above i.e.: lack of reputable peer-reviewed references for the stated claims regarding lack of which-way information. P.S. Let's take this vote and action within the next 48 hours.-- Prof. Afshar 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

--

  • There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons.
    • Danko Georgiev, etc....
    • Tabish Qureshi, etc....
    • Daniel Reitzner, etc....

--

Delete as discussed at length above. -- Prof. Afshar 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP - improve don't delete. For instance, is this a quote from Unruh or a paraphrasing or what? It's not clear. It's looks muddled to me, perhaps better sourcing and context would help. --Michael C. Price talk 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Michael, I think (in fact I'm sure) you are confusing the OR issue. Danko, Tabish and Reitzner are saying that There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons. Don't you consider this statement OR?! If you don't, then we have a very serious problem. The text above that bold line, where Unruh's view is directly referenced to his own web-page are not being discussed right now. Please tell me how you can reword the bold quote above to make it acceptable. I will respond to your formalism issue after we settle this #4 OR problem. Kindly reconsider your vote in light of the above.-- Prof. Afshar 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would be more likely to answer the OR issue if the statement was more accurately sourced. --Michael C. Price talk 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Danko posted it. That's your source.-- Prof. Afshar 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I must confess I had not closely examined this text before, but now that I have examined it, I see that it is not OR and correctly summarises the following statements by Danko, Tabish, Daniel etc..... It could be clarified a bit: I would rephrase it as: There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup. Whether I agree with the statement is another matter, but that is irrelevant; we are here to report, not judge. --Michael C. Price talk 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, still you seem a little careless (helpfully not deliberately), and apparently you have not yet fully realized what Danko, Qureshi, and Dereitzer (DQD) are saying. Also, you should be careful in your suggested statement above when you mention "Afshar's setup" as to which particular setup you are referring. I have one setup (Fig. 2 in the Wiki article) with the wires in the path of the light (this is unique to my experiment but is not being discussed by DQD) and another one without the wires (shown in Fig.1 which is the same exact setup as that of Wheeler's and is the subject of DQD’s assertions). Therefore it is not just my setup in which they claim there is no which-way information. They claim in any welcher weg experiment in which the coherent beams cross each other there is no which way information. This includes Wheeler's as well as various other investigators' setups. This assertion is clearly stated by Danko in the past over and over, and is mentioned directly in Qureshi's manuscript: "The beams cross and there after the detectors DA and DB collect the photons. Interestingly, Wheeler assumes that when the two beams cross uninterrupted, the detectors DA and DB give the which path information. From our preceding analysis it is clear that if there is interference in the crossing region, the two detectors no longer give the which-path information." So as you can see he is also nullifying Wheeler's setup, the details of which were clearly delineated in his seminal papers on the subject: J. A. Wheeler, in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, A. R. Marlow, Ed. (Academic Press. 1978); ibid, in: Some Strangeness in the Proportion, H. Woolf, Ed. (Addison-Wesley Pulishing Compony, Inc, New Jersey, 1980). The bottom line here is that they are invalidating the accepted which-way by momentum conservation argument that dates back to Einstein himself and has been discussed by innumerable investigators from Wheeler down to Griffiths, Scully and others, all of which have reputable references, and some of which (about 16 ref.s ) have been mentioned in my papers. Unless DQD publish their ideas on nullification of the long-held view on presnece of which way information in the setup shown in Fig. 1 in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, this statement (There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons.) and its sources must be considered OR and removed from the article. P.S. You say "we are here to report, not judge." I disagree, the whole purpose of this Mediation is to establish what is and isn't OR according to Wiki rules. Therefore we are compelled to judge whether a source is reliable or not. -- Prof. Afshar 00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You're changing the subject, which was whether the statement was OR and how could it be improved. It was not OR and I have improved it. End of discussion. If you are now ready for a more general discussion of the physics then please answer my questions about the formalism. --Michael C. Price talk 07:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Look Michael, I know you occasionally enjoy yanking my chain, but come on, this is serious, how am I changing the subject? Did you even read my response? You did not tell me which setup you were talking about. How did you establish that the DQD statement is not OR? I provided reputable peer-reviewed references for the opposite view at length above. Did you provide similarly reputable references for the DQD statement? "End of discussion": why, because you say so?! "If you are now ready for a more general discussion of the physics" (i) the current issue has not been resolved, (ii) as you have mentioned yourself before, Wikipeida is not the place for such general discussions. Everything you say here must be based on direct quotes from reputable sources with the aim of improving the article. You and I can have e-mail correspondence on topics of interest on a parallel track, but I do not see any reason to fill the pages of this discussion page with weblog material. Mediator, please note that Michael has not produced a evidence that the disputed section is not OR. I wish other editors to engage in this issue as well. If there are no other editors that can attribute reputable sources to the DQD statement I would appreciate if the Mediator removes them from the text. -- Prof. Afshar 14:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The statement in question There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup. is not OR because it correctly summarises the following 3 statements which are sourced. Yes, we can have a debate about whether they are reputable, reliable or not, but that is tangential to the issue of whether it is OR or not, which is the title of this section. I am not engaging with the physics here because (i) that is strictly speaking irrelevant (although I'll grant we all know the OR rule is honoured more in the breach than observance across Wikipedia). (ii) you refuse to engage with the critical formalism issues I have highlighted in another section. Reciprocate please. And I asked first :-) PS as for which setup is commented on, it seems the sources are talking about both (i.e. with and without the wires), hence my suggested removal of the adjunct about the wires.--Michael C. Price talk 15:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "...it seems the sources are talking about both (i.e. with and without the wires)" Well, if you look at the Specific critiques section in the article, it has been devided into two distinct groups. The top group comprising of references to papers by academic physcists Unruh, Motl, Kastner, Drezet, and Steuernagel only talks about the lack of which-way information in the presence of the wires (what can be properly called my experiment) , and all of them agree that which-way information is reliable when there are no wires (i.e. in Wheeler's original setup). The second group, which relates to DQD ref.s deny the presence of the which-way information even when there are no wires (again i.e. in Wheeler's original setup). It is this second group that needs to be removed because their main thesis as described by Danko in the article is OR. Although I disdain Danko's antics, I must say however, he is at least clear cut on what his main thesis is. All I'm suggesting is that the second group that has no reliable sources for their argument be removed. Otherwise, keeping them on the article gives the non-expert reader that the false impression that the OR presented in their papers is accepted in the mainstream physics community. Unruh himself wrote to me and Danko and publicly denounced their thesis. I can post his remarks if you wish. P.S. If we cannot come to an agreement on this simple issue, how well do you think we can do regarding the formalism topic? We need to address this clear case of OR vs. reputable sources and resolve it first before we move on to more thorny issues. -- Prof. Afshar 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, Wheeler probably did not consider the possibility of interference in the region where the beams cross, so, the issue of losing which-way information did not occur to him. You can ask him now, what he feels about it.
And since you mentioned the "well established momentum conservation", can you please explain here how momentum conservation in your eperiment works, when the initial state is a superposition of two momentum states?
And please do not raise the issue of OR to extreme levels - you will see my paper in a peer reviewed journal soon.
Just remember that you are claiming that the long established Complementarity has been violated, whereas I am saying it CANNOT be violated. --Tabish q 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Tabish, you say "Wheeler probably did not consider the possibility of interference in the region where the beams cross", I think you greatly underestimate Prof. Wheeler's immense insights on this topic. You seem to be unaware of the fact that he published two papers (J. A. Wheeler, in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, A. R. Marlow, Ed. (Academic Press. 1978); in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, H. Woolf, Ed. (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc, New Jersey, 1980), in which he discussed exactly the crossed beam scenario. I conducted an experiment using his setup shown in Fig. 1 of my AIP paper http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701039. Here's a depiction of Wheeler's crossed beam experimentand the brief reasoning involving the conservation laws. He discusses his analysis of the setup in his papers in much detail. "You can ask him now, what he feels about it." Indeed I had the honor of discussing his suggested experiments 6 years ago, during which he reiterated the conservation laws as the reasoning for which-way information and pointed out that Einstein himself used that same argument with Bohr, especially during the EPR debates. "Just remember that you are claiming that the long established Complementarity has been violated, whereas I am saying it CANNOT be violated." Well, while I'm questioning the validity of Complementarity which is not central to QM formalism, you defend Complementarity by violating the conservation laws at the very heart of QM. The conservation laws are inviolable and anyone who suggests otherwise would not be take seriously by the mainstream physics community, thus I highly doubt any respectable peer-reviewed journal would ever publish your claims. P.S. Please do not use line breaks in your text, as it takes more space, and makes it more difficult to follow your argument. Looking forward to hearing your response. -- Prof. Afshar 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You are claiming that momentum conservation gives you the which-path information. Let us suppose that detector 1 detects photons with momentum |p1> and detector 2 detects photon with momentum |p2>. Suppose you detect a photon at detector 1 - you would conclude that it came from slit 1 and the initial momentum was |p1>. But this can only happen if slit 2 is closed. If both the slits are open, the initial state is something like |p1>+|p2>. And just before hitting any detector the state is again close to |p1>+|p2>, which says that momentum conservation is there. However, on hitting the detector, a superposition like |p1>+|p2> will go into sometimes |p1>, and sometimes |p2>. All that momentum conservation can tell you here is that the detectors 1 and 2 will click an equal number of times on the average, nothing more!
IF the particle was prepared in state |p1> and u detect it with momentum |p1>, it can give you a which-way information - that happens when only one slit is open. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tabish q (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Fantastic. Now I'd like to ask you a few more questions based on your own argument above. (1) As the wavfunctions emerge from the two pinholes I right the initial state as |p1>+|p2> right? Now let the states (that are not spatially overlapped) evolve unitarily for a little while just enough to clear the pinholes (say move about 1cm from the pinholes). They are still spatially non-overlapping. (2) If I observe a photon in the beam emerging from pinhole 1 the superposition |p1>+|p2> would collapse and I would find its state to be |p1> (similarly for pinhole 2) do you agree? (3) Would it be possible to find the photon in beam 1 to have momentum state |p2>? If so, please explain how using QM formalism. BTW/ If you could show this, you would win my $1000 prize I announced 3 years ago, so it’d be worth your time to respond!--Prof. Afshar 17:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The scenario before the beams cross and after the beams cross is different. Before the beams cross, there is no interferemce, so no problem with which-way information. Quantum mechanically I had already shown you something before, which u did not respond to.psi(x) = aexp(ikx) + bexp( − ikx), here the two terms represents waves with opposite momenta. Now, some parts of the two waves cancel with each other, and some parts add to each other. Let me decompose them into that for you psi(x) = a[cos(ikx) + isin(kx)] + b[cos(kx) − isin(kx)]. For a=b, the sin(kx) terms would cancel and the cos(kx) terms would add up. After interference, you will be left with psi(x) = 2cos(kx) = exp(ikx) + exp( − ikx), which is two waves moving in opposite direction. But these two waves individually do not carry any which way information.
All photons emerge from the bright fringes. Bright fringes are formed by portions of the states from the two slits which are identical. Orthogonal states cannot be added to give a bright fringe. As the contribution from teh two slits is identical, there is no which-way information. Is that enough for you? --Tabish q 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
DELETE - on the basis that such is OR. I would still like to see the papers listed somewhere - but without the paraphrasing, quotes, etc. But in the meantime I vote delete. --Carl A Looper 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I also suggest that the voting mechanism is just the second last step (step d) in the following rational solution to the problems of editing the article. If the voting mechanism fails we have only step e remaining. Voting has never been the primary solution. But due to demonstrated unilateral behaviour on behalf of non-negotiable editors it is the only remaining rational way of avoiding an edit war.
a. debate (in the talk pages)
b. consensus amongst editors
c. else, present each differing argument,
d. else, vote on what is presented
e. else, act unilaterally (edit war)
--Carl A Looper 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Afshar, please reply what is your argument that suggests: [1] Bohr's published work is wrong, and [2] Wheeler's published work is correct. It seems that it is quite possible that Wheeler has made overlook, so You are wrong and Bohr is correct. What is your scientific argumentation that helps us to decide which one of these notable physisits is wrong. I believe if one of them must be wrong, then providing citations will not help. I think that Tabish is correct to point of math formulas, which in this case must be of greater value than citations of literature. Mathematics is superior to everything else called science, so please reply also by writing some equations. I believe some of the other wiki-editors will be good enough in verifying the written math by you. Danko Georgiev MD 07:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Mathematics is superior to everything else called science.... and Danko is its prophetDrezet 08:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you being sarcastic, or do you really mean that? Please clarify. Sdirrim 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
please all :sorry indeed it was a sarcasm but i felt better after Drezet 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, decision made. I have reviewed all of the evidence shown on this talk page. If I may say so, there is nothing original in the arguments in this section. First off, I don't care what the mathematics are. Just because you can provide partial equations to prove your point (and this goes for everyone here) does not mean that you are free to ignore wikipedia guidelines. We have all debated this. The sources that are being referenced by the text in question have been deemed "questionable" and/or "unreliable". This is on account of the lack of mandatory peer-review before release to the general public.

Now, I can forsee "But it has a process where A and B, so C and it is effectively peer-reviewed..." BOTTOM LINE: ArXiv has been deemed not to be a reliable source. Anyone is free to retain the text elsewhere, post a blog about it, put it in a scientific journal, whatever. But not on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a place to determine who is correct, and then to post that person's ideas. It is a place to post neutral information about a wide variety of subjects gathered from reliable sources. Not to argue who is right. Should people who follow Intelligent Design (or Evolution) be able to make edits to the Evolution (or Intelligent Design) article, on the basis that they believe that they are right? No. Should the same people be able to make edits to the same article strictly on the basis of removing unsourced information and unreliable sources? Yes (Unfortunately, things don't always work that way).

If you wish to alter the basic foundations of the topic on which this article is written, get yourself published in a reliable, peer-reviewed publication, and then put that reliable reference in the article. But until then, don't go changin the article on the basis of "math proves me right, I don't need to listen to Wikipedia guidelines".

Overall, I believe that everyone has shown Disputed Text #4 to lack a reliable source as a reference. Therefore, it should be removed as a matter of policy. It may be replaced with text that has a reliable source, and anyone is free to save the current text of the article to have a template to work from once a reliable source is found. Sdirrim 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, by this logic you will have to remove all the criticism from the page - none of it is published yet. Unruh's is not even an ArXiv paper. But then you will end up making this article a mouthpiece of a work which is not published in a mainstream journal, and is not accepted by the majority physics community. There are reasons why Afshar's work could not be published in any of the mainstream journals like Physical Review and Europhysics letters, where works novel in nature are published, although it claims to be most novel. --Tabish q 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I do realize that neutrality should be maintained. NPOV doesn't excuse the inclusion of 'unrealiable sources'.
However, after reviewing Wikipedia's policies, absolute sources are not necessary for "Criticism" sections, in this article being Specific Critiques and Ongoing Debate. While ArXiv isn't a reliable source for scientific fact, I would consider it to be acceptable to demonstrate that a certain person expresses a certain viewpoint. The reason we do not need the same level of attribution is that we are stating the "critiques" and "debate" as opinions on the experiment, rather than definite fact. Non-peer-reviewed papers are acceptable sources for things such as "So-and-so has stated such-and-such" but not statements of fact. Sdirrim 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion of this type of patently wrong OR even in the criticism section is unacceptable. Even if you attribute it to some group (especially if they are not notable), and if their source is unreliable, it nonetheless promotes that argument to a level of legitimacy within the article. It is like saying that in an article on 2+2=4, someone has written a paper that says 1+2=4 and therefore 2+2=5 as a criticism. Such an argument is OR and cannot be used even in the section on a criticism for the article on 2+2=4. The violation of the conservation laws suggested by DQD has been pointed out as absolute nonsense by Prof. Unruh himself even though he is a critic of my work. Let's not mix legitimate critiques with utter nonsense by armatures in the field. -- Prof. Afshar 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That is why we have the concept of "weight" in an article. Minority views need not be given the same weight as the standard view, but they sould still be included or at least mentioned. Viewpoints attributed to tiny minority groups need not be mentioned at all (although you are free to do so). Sdirrim 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed the DQD is a minority view (only 3 people!) which has not even been published in a reputable journal. How exactly are you going to keep their text in and convey the point that nobody else (among experts) considers their work worthy of a discussion let alone publication. If you wish I can share with you Prof. Unruh's private comments regarding Danko and his claims here. -- Prof. Afshar 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Afshar my work has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, Progress In Physics 2007; 2: 97-103. I guess however that any journal that publishes disproval of your views you will call it not reputable. Also I do NOT propose violations of conservations laws. As it was explained clearly to you by Tabish, the argument proposed does NOT violate concervation laws, simply after interference, each slit wavefunction evolves into superposition of two waves each with opposite momentum. As far as the final outcome is 50/50 no violation of conservation laws has been done by us. Just the which way information is gone. Danko Georgiev MD 06:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Danko, please stop advertising your "publication" here. We all know the reputation (or lack thereof) of the journal where you published. Suffice it to say it is a journal the editor of which is banned from posting physics papers on arXiv, believes in a science "Mafia" out there to get him, and promotes publication of papers on violations of special relativity, etc., This same journal has now aptly published another blatant violation of physical laws suggested by your paper. Nice fit indeed. P.S. You are still in probation right?!-- Prof. Afshar 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, Danko's paper should be treated as a reliable source, as it is published in a peer reviewed journal. This journal is also listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, which has a criterion of subject and quality control to be included in the list. Unless of course, you need a stamp of approval from Afshar for every journal. Papers of both Afshar and Danko have been published after undergoing peer review. We may disagree on which journals maintain higher academic standards, but that is not for people to decide on wikipedia discussion. --Tabish q 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone can (and Tabish should) understand the difference between a journal with Nobel Laureates as its editors (Foundations of Physics), and a journal with paranoid editors, fearing the manistream "Mafia" out there (Progress in Physics). Get real, a journal that charges its authors, and claims legitimacy in its first line of intorduction with a statement like "Progress in Physics is a quarterly issue American scientific journal registered with the Library of Congress (DC)" is sorely aware of its stumpy ranking amongst legitimate journals. Last time I checked with the Library of Congress, they said ANYONE could register ANYTHING (one's own diary, a child's drawing, etc.) for $30! Enough said--thought the above is just the tip of the iceberg. -- Prof. Afshar 15:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Tabish, although I understand your point, I find it personally offensive. I am trying to remain neutral, and I do not always agree with Afshar. Regardless of any similarities between our views, I do not require "Afshar's stamp of approval", nor am I a sockpuppet. I was not aware that the papers that have been referred to were published on anything besides ArXiv. No one even mentioned it. The only discussion was whether ArXiv counted as a reliable source. In addition, the papers that you refer to are not referenced in the article. If you wish to include a paper in the article, refer to it as it is in whatever peer-reviewed journal it was published in. Sdirrim 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Most reputable journal of high standards require tax for the processing of the manuscripts and for printing. PNAS is quite famous journal, and you can see the high taxes here PNAS:page taxes. Of course there are much more reputable journals that require higher taxes, and sell their content - do not release it free. Progress In Physics releases all his papers for open access, therefore the taxes are not for profit. Compare PNAS killing taxes, and then tell us which journal is good, and which not good. Danko Georgiev MD 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparing PNAS with PP? That's an insult. PNAS is a high quality print publication by the best American scholars (mostly in biological sciences), widely read and highly respected. It asks its usually well-funded authors to pitch in IF THEY CAN. As for PP, well, as a colleague mentioned it's not worth the paper it's published on. In fact most physicists would not even look at it even if they were paid to do so. I must say though, with the addition of your paper to PP, I consider it "mission accomplished". -- Prof. Afshar 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mediator, please act upon the decision to remove the OR dicussed in the Disputed text #4. Thanks.-- Prof. Afshar 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, did you yourself made the final decision? As far as I can see the votes are 2-1 Qureshi, Georgiev vs. Afshar, concerning Carl's comment I was not sure how to classify it, does Carl also think Progress in Physics as not being reputable peer-reviewed journal, as so far I see this is only your personal Afshar's opinion? Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Afshar is allowed to bring any topic he likes???

Dear Mediator, please answer to this question. Why you tolerate the fact that any topic Afshar thinks suitable for this discussion must be allowed, and all his complaints of what others are discussing, should be satisfied. What is the relevance between the newly bringed by Afshar stuff on prof. Smarandache, the mafia, the arXiv blacklistings, the page taxes, etc., and Afshar's article? Why noone objects Afshar and warns him to stop? Can't everyone see that all this is irrelevant to this discussion, and that Afshar provokes, by insulting people. I am being constantly involved to reply because Afshar insults someone. Afshar please stop! And let someone [the mediator] explain to Afshar that the no personal attack is valid for all participants. Thanks. Danko Georgiev MD 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, please don't mention my name, and you will not see me in the future on any page where you are having a discussion. If you don't like me, please don't contact me, and do not adress messages to me. Danko Georgiev MD 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Everything I have said is based on cited sources, and directly relevant to the evaluation debate on reliability of sources for material used in the article. "Afshar, please don't mention my name" Rest assured I derive no pleasure from mentioning your name, however, I will expose lies, vandalism, OR and any other unsavory behavior by you to as many individuals and authorities as necessary, as long as you perpetrate them (without even once apologizing for any of them.) You've certainly got some cheek to come back here after all the despicable insults you've lobbed on my person, and being put on probations which you've broken time after time. Goodbye. -- Prof. Afshar 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Afshar, don't offend others, as you see this is not good way to lead a discussion. The fact that you are author of Afshar's experiment is understandable, yet this does not give you rights to behave as if this article is under your possesion. Indeed good Wikipedia advice is that you leave others edit the article that discusses your work. You can never be neutral for your own work, that is why noone in the court is allowed to be judge of his own relatives if prosecution has been made. Danko Georgiev MD 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...I'll stay out of this. Sdirrim 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute pieces 5,6

Disputed pieces 5 and 6, according to the vote, either require deletion or, if not, then the votes are meaningless - and I will be putting back the counter-arguments (in the Ongoing Debate section) as these were deleted under the same meaningless vote.

--Carl A Looper 02:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Votes are, by Wiki policy, meaningless. Follow the guidelines. #6 is especially well sourced and it not OR -- it is a paraphrasing of what Bohr said about complementarity in general and what some modern commentators have said about complementarity in Afshar's experiment specifically.--Michael C. Price talk 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Michael. I'm not proposing deletion of your mangled contribution. I'm proposing putting back the well sourced counter-argument - and by well sourced I mean your source - Bohr himself. Consider Bohr's words "interference effect". By "interference effect" Bohr is referring to that which is recorded on a photographic plate - not those virtual interference patterns we might otherwise hallucinate as "already there". The single photons to which Bohr refers are theoretical particles. We can only appreciate such individual particles in theory. We can't actually see/experience them in fact. We only ever see (or experience) the trace they leave behind. When Bohr is talking about an "interference effect" he is referring to what we see/experience in fact - (or what a photographic plate experiences in fact). Bohr's "interference effect" is an emperical effect - a factum. And it's a statistical one at that. Otherwise we could point to a single particle trace and claim "look - there is demonstrated interference". Hah. It's absolute baloney Michael. Complete rubbish and you expect people to take you seriously and agree that your reading of Bohr correct. Well sourced it might be but your spin is completely ludicrous. And attributing complementarity to Ehrenfest is the worst defense I have seen emerge from your sorry straw clutching exercise in self delerium. And the way in which you conflate your "already there" argument with Drezet's otherwise decent criticque is absolutely sinful. Your OR is worse than anyone's OR here because you can't even see that it is OR. You are intellectually blind to your very own interpretative positon. Oh yes. I don't understand. You'll seek solace in Zurek, dreaming that everyone is confused and that only YOU understand the universe. Well buddy. Good luck. Just stay out of my way because I'm sick and tired of your stupid simplistic takes on otherwise very interesting theory. --Carl A Looper 06:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Carl, before you begin frothing at mouth you should check your facts: I did not attribute complementarity to Ehrenfest; I said Bohr probably knew of and drew on Ehrenfest's theorem in developing his complementarity POV. As for your claim that The single photons to which Bohr refers are theoretical particles. - that is OR.--Michael C. Price talk 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Michael, please try to stay calm. I removed the derogatory remark by you because it compares Carl to a rabid dog. Do you think that's appropriate? OK then, you remove it yourself, but please do it so that the discussions can remain civil. Patience my friend, patience. -- Prof. Afshar 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that Carl should also stay calm? No, I shall not remove the description, which I still think is a fair response to Carl's outburst. Interesting that you consider Carl's uncivil hyperbole perfectly acceptable; if you're going to act as self-appointed censor you need to be a bit more even-handed in its applicaton. Seriously, though, please do not edit my (or anyone's) comments.--Michael C. Price talk 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
All editors including Carl and myself should remain polite. I did not catch him using foul language but could have missed it. I will not remove insults anymore, though in the long run it may hurt the individual(s) involved to have such language remain in his archived comments. Hey everybody, let's not start WWIII here OK? -- Prof. Afshar 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Incivility is never justified, even in response to somebody else's transgression. In fact, it is sometimes considered appropriate in Wikipedia to remove uncivil comments made by other people on a Talk page. --Art Carlson 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes, and I'd like to see it applied even-handledly even then; I do not consider my comment uncivil (although that is a matter of opinion); it was certainly milder than Carl's stream of consciousness. --Michael C. Price talk 21:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm on Carl's side. Although I'm long dead I'm still capable of speaking. As a more appropriate way of expression, I advocated the application of the word phenomenon exclusively to refer to the observations obtained under specified circumstances, including an account of the whole experimental arrangement. In such terminology, the observational problem is free of any special intricacy since, in actual experiments, all observations are expressed by unambiguous statements referring, for instance, to the registration of the point at which an electron arrives at a photographic plate. Moreover, speaking in such a way is just suited to emphasise that the appropriate physical interpretation of the symbolic quantum-mechanical formalism amounts only to predictions, of determinate or statistical character, pertaining to individual phenomena appearing under conditions defined by classical physical concepts. - Neils Bohr.
By "attributing complementarity to Ehrenfest" I mean precisely statements such as:
"Bohr probably knew of and drew on Ehrenfest's theorem in developing his complementarity POV." - MP
Michael is suggesting that Ehrenfest's theorem is what Bohr "probably" means by "classical physical concepts". (as suggested by MP in prior discussions). Apart from being obvious OR it is also completely ludicrous. It goes against the entire grain of what Bohr is saying. Michael wants us to read Bohr as framing the formalism in terms of a "classicism" derived from the formalism. Yet this would just reintroduce the very ambiguitys Bohr is trying to avoid in the first place. --Carl A Looper 04:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, what is ludicrous is that Carl can produce a quote and then claim it means something completely different. Anyone can read my quote and see that Carl's interpretation is entirely unsupported. --Michael C. Price talk 09:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Michael. If your words are so ambiguous as to allow "misreadings" such as mine please clarify. If the message I'm getting from you is incorrect then either you have failed to communicate and/or I have failed to understand. Which of these options is correct remains to be seen. However, if you refuse to elaborate any further (which would not surprise me) then it's no longer me who might be failing to understand - it will be just you who are failing to communicate.
For the benefit of other readers, Ehrenfest was brought up in the context of a discussion about Bohr's use of classical concepts. My question was how one could read Bohr's use of classical concepts, as an "echo" of the formalism. Michaels' response was:
"Classical concepts (such as Newton's second law) emerge from the formalism via Ehrenfest's theorem." --Michael C. Price talk 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
How does one reply to such a thing? After dispatching some thoughts on decoherence Michael responded with:
"I note that you avoided commenting on the emergence of classical concepts, such as Newton's laws of motion, from Ehrenfest's theorem, which is part of the formalism of QM." --Michael C. Price talk 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I responded to the challenge by suggesting that Bohr's classical concepts were those concepts that classical thought had invented - rather than any that might be re-invented via the formalism. Michael went on to say:
"Bohr and Ehrenfest were particularly close, so Bohr undoubtly drew on Ehrenfest's theorem from the 1920s in developing his ideas on complementarity."--Michael C. Price talk 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
So you see. Michael's argument is very clear. But if not he needs to clarify. --Carl A Looper 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, which part is unclear? --Michael C. Price talk 07:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You tell me. --Carl A Looper 22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not prepared to back your claims up, eh? --Michael C. Price talk 08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Michael. I am the one who has backed up my claims - by quoting you directly. You are the one that needs to demonstrate how I've misunderstood or misrepresented your Ehrenfest argument. You say:
"No, what is ludicrous is that Carl can produce a quote and then claim it means something completely different. Anyone can read my quote and see that Carl's interpretation is entirely unsupported." - MP
This is a claim by you - ie. that I have misrepresented you. All I'm saying - is if I have misrepresented you then demonstrate how. As far as I am concerned, you were being perfectly clear. But if you were not (or I have misunderstood you) then please clarify. I can't do this for you. As I said, as far as I'm concerned you are perfectly clear. And I feel I have demonstrated such. Your problem is that while you are quick to accuse others of not arguing their case (which is patently incorrect) you refuse, or are incapable of arguing your own case. Have a look in the mirror Michael. And when you're done please argue your case - ie. in what way I have misrepresented your Ehrenfest argument. In other words - what is your argument if it's not the one I have presented here. Otherwise - as far as I'm concerned - what you are saying is perfectly clear - and perfectly incorrect. --Carl A Looper 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable sources in disputed text #4

This situation is untenable. OR in #4 must be removed ASAP. No reliable source has been provided. Danko's "paper" has been published in "Progress in Physics" (PP) a journal of disrepute due to its publication of papers on violations of special relativity. No one in the physics community takes the "journal" seriously. I have discussed PP above and have provided evidence for its lack of reliability. Such terrible sourcing and outright fallacies make Wikipedia look like a joke. It was placed in the article without a discussion, and must thus be removed immediately until a final decision is made as to its reliability. This problem needs to be addressed by the Mediator ASAP. Thanks. P.S. Please pay particular attention to guidelines set by Jimmy Wales (Wikpedia founder): To ensure something is not OR, you should provide evidence that it "has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers." No such evidence has been provided thus far. Also see Reliable Sources. -- Prof. Afshar 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, stop offending the journal "Progress In Physics". As your interpretations on the content seem to imply that "Foundations of Physics" is as good, as Stefan Marinov has published 4 times in "Foundations of Physics", while the article in PP is "post-humous" and is published as a memorial for the tragic suicide of Marinov. Danko Georgiev MD 09:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I discussed at length before, Marinov had several legitimate publications in the 70's in respectable journals like PLA and Found. Phys. yet he later kept pushing crank ideas like perpetual motion machines and absolute motion. To promote his already debunked ideas in a memorial article in PP is in fact worse than Marinov's original attempts. Do you care to explain why exactly he committed suicide? The reason is plain and simple: he tragically succumbed to the rejection from the mainstream physics community that aptly denied him the platform to promote his faulty ideas. This whole issue is a sordid affair, and I do not wish to talk about an individual that has passed away, yet there is not clearer case of carckpottery in 21st century and its promotion than that of Marinov and PP.-- Prof. Afshar 12:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Afshar, what about your "violation of complementarity/math consistency"? Did anyone start to offend the journal who published your work? If noone offends the journal where you publish, please be kind not to offend journals and people that you don't even know. p.s. I am glad to have informed some of the relevant people, about your claims, and have been kind to send them exact quotations, and web links of yours. Danko Georgiev MD 09:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
By all means. I look forward to have a discussion with them regarding their paranoid statements about the "scientific Mafia" and bans from arXiv physics pages. If they want to be taken seriously, they should clean their house and avoid publishing absolute nonsense on violations of special relativity, memorial or not. They push fringe ideas on detection of gravitational waves, Aether, all of which would be considered major discoveries, yet no physicist considers them worth reading. Perhaps we are all card carrying members of the "International Mafia" and Einstein's mafia PP's editor believes in. Just scroll down in http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/websites.html to "Progress in Physics" entry for the opinion of some of the other academic co-conspirators! Prof. Afshar 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

MEDIATOR please act now. Editors, please wait for mediator to catch up. -- Prof. Afshar 13:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to lack of action by Mediator, I removed the OR from the article. If anyone wishes to repost it, they he/she must provide reputable peer-reviewed sources. The OR was placed in the article without a discussion, and weeks of discussion seems to have made no improvements in the article. If anyone wants to engage in an edit war, let's roll. Bring in an admin. as the Mediator seems not to act once he comes to a decision. Enough of OR and misleading OR pushing. --Prof. Afshar 14:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have rolled back the article. Let the mediator act as we agreed. Also Afshar is not permitted to edit the article, as has been extensively previously discussed. I suspect the mediator is waiting for us to reach a consensus. --Michael C. Price talk 12:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I will remove OR period. The Mediator is indecisive, and unqualified, vacillating between one decision and the opposite. The disputed text was posted without a discussion, and should be removed until it is shown its thesis is discussed in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The burden of proof relies by the advocates of the text. Speaking of consensus, do you regard "Progress in Physics" a reliable source? If so provide your reasoning, and no beating around the bush this time please. There must be a distinction between respected journals and fringe pseudoscience. -- Prof. Afshar 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Afshar, you know that conflict of interest issues forbid you from editting the article. --Michael C. Price talk 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My only interest is upholding Wiki rules. Unreliably sourced must be removed period. You want to involve and admin? Let's roll. -- Prof. Afshar 12:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Afshar, please don't go too far. Your offence of the Mediator with the words "The Mediator is indecisive, and unqualified, vacillating between one decision and the opposite" and then you take the JUSTICE in your own hands. I think this is not how Wikipedia works. I have voted above for you to be put on probabtion this time I will vote for you to be banned from editting your article. I hope others will vote below so that you will not be allowed to modify yourself no section of the article of your experiment. My vote is: BAN. Danko Georgiev MD 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
An of course many Editors have voted for you to be Banned two weeks ago for reasons described in the following section: "Request for Danko to be banned from editing this article and contributing to the talk page". You can't fool all the people all the time. -- Prof. Afshar 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific critiques

I just realized that Danko had removed the following statment from the Specific critiques section without a debate. Without it, it is highly unbalanced, and one-sided, giving the false impression that I have left such critiques without responses. Mediator, please restore the text below in the Specific critiques section:

"Afshar's rebuttals are available on his Q&A archive[5] and FAQ.[6] "

Question: is this reliable source? Peer-reviewed journals are called "not reputable" by Afshar, but his own blog pages are to be considered reputable?? (Afshar, if you did not mention my name, I wouldn't be here, remember?)Danko Georgiev MD 05:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If other Blogs (Motl, Unruh) are to remain, so should the archival one that responds to them remain to keep an NPOV. Danko, if you had not vandalized the article, I wouldn't utter your name. -- Prof. Afshar 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The above text removed by vandalism, has been restored in the interest of neutrality. -- Prof. Afshar 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have rolled back the article. Let the mediator act as we agreed. Also Afshar is not permitted to edit the article, as has been extensively previously discussed. --Michael C. Price talk 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. As an internationally recognized expert on the topic, I have every right to edit the article given the extensive discussion we have had. Especially if the likes of Danko can put OR in the article without a debate. Bring in an expert admin and get this ridiculous edit war over. This is taking too long, all the while the egregious errors remain in the article misleading countless lay readers. This ends now.-- Prof. Afshar 12:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's editorial policy is of course explictly based on being able to verify that someone has said something and NOT on the truth of what they have said. 1Z 15:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's vote on Afshar being able to edit the article. It's just ridiculous that he is stopped from editing the article - especially when he's stopped by people who write rubbish, who circle around Wikipedia policy simply by claiming their contribution is NPOV and not OR, (when it obviously is) - who argue against voting but then want to enforce such mediation when it suits them. --Carl A Looper 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I vote let Afshar edit the article. --Carl A Looper 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Your vote is irrelevant. Wikpedia policy is quite clear that no one should edit an article in which they have a vested interest. This has been discussed before on this talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 08:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please cite the policy correctly. Editors with a real or potential conflict of interest are "strongly discouraged" from editing and asked to "exercise great caution" when doing so, but they are not forbidden to do so. --Art Carlson 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reputable peer-reviewd sources (RPS)

Do you consider arXiv, and "Progress in Physics" as RPS? Simple yes and no answers please. I regard both NOT to be RPS due to facts discussed in my above posts.

(Afshar)

[edit] Disputed piece #4 condensed and moved to footnote

As I read the discussion, most editors agree that the "disputed piece #4" is not based on sources that are themselves considered reliable and does not represent the views of prominent critics. Although this material would not ordinarily be suitable for Wikipedia, there is also the sentiment, shared by myself, that an effort should be made to represent the state of the criticism as completely as possible, even if that means using somewhat questionable sources. I think a reasonable compromise is to put some of this information in a footnote. This solution can certainly be discussed and eventually overthrown, but from the arguments presented, it is definitely closer to Wiki policy than the status quo. In the process I also removed the quotes since they simply stated the conclusion without explaining how it was arrived at. If anyone seriously objects to this move, please give your reasons succinctly here. I do not consider the extended inaction of the "mediator" to be a valid argument. --Art Carlson 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an amicable solution from my point of view. At some point however, the OR should be removed completely. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing debate

Am removing the ongoing debate section altogether - for a number of reasons:

1. Votes by various editors. 2. Demonstrateable OR (despite MP's claim to the contrary) 3. If it represents an ongoing debate it is only one between Michael and myself. A more robust and sensible debate is represented by the papers in the specific critiques section.

--Carl A Looper 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carl, you have deleted some of the reference note via your edit - so some references look empty, one of Drezet, Unruh, etc. Please go back and repair the reference style as needed, so that there are no "orphan" refs. As you have destroyed the ref information, I think it is your duty to repair these. Danko Georgiev MD 06:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. Ok. --Carl A Looper 06:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. I didn't touch the reference section at all. Ok. Will need to revert Onging section and work it out from there. --Carl A Looper 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carl, the original ref template has been deleted from the above text, and then empty ref appears pointing to the ref "name" of the one above, which is now deleted. P.S. I also, support Afshar to be able to edit, yet, please do not supprt his reversals, and offences. I have never been put on probation, nor I am crackpot to be reverted with such a sticker by Afshar. Please don't be blind for such a behavior, let us be civilized, and when Afshar does something bad, let us not close our eyes. Please also revert Afshar's reverts as he feels authorized by your vote giving him rights to edit directly. I and others have already voted and reached the decision that Afshar should be able to edit directly any portion of text, that is not connected with his experimental setup given in the introductory part. The Critique section must be immunized against Afshar's direct edits, otherwise he unbalances, deletes, offends, puts "crackpot labels" and thus pushes extremely his own OR position to the end. Danko Georgiev MD 06:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think I get it now. The original references were embedded in the Ongoing debate section, and the reference section contained the links back to the debate section. I'll see what I can do. --Carl A Looper 06:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've restored the ongoing debate section in order to restore the references. I think I'll just leave it there for the time being till I work out how it's cross referenced and how it can be removed without removing the references! --Carl A Looper 07:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the major problems with Michael's argument is that he conflates an "interference effect" with the wave function, and an "observed particle" with "tracing a path". The formalism embodys the wave function - it does not embody (in a formal sense) the "interference effect". The interference effect is, of course, predicted by the formalism. Now BPC (and Afshar's experiment) is more specifically, about the "interference effect" and it's supposed complementary relationship with the construction (tracing) of a semi-classical path (rather than a particle detection per se). Drezet's argument is an important one which Michael mangles. According to Bohr (which Drezet notes) one can not reconstruct the wave function from a set of individual particle detections. One can, of course, reconstruct composite or "pseudo-wave functions". And this happens quite a lot in information theoretic terms. But in Afshar's experiment, unlike the conventional twin slit experiment, it is actually impossible to reconstruct even a pseudo-wave function. In many ways Afshar's experiment is better than the twin slit experiment since it elliminates the very possibility of reconstructing a pseudo-wave function (I'm ignoring the minor fourier components discernible). In other words, Bohr's warning is actually irrelevant here. Another important point is that, in solid state experiments such as the Afshar experiment, (and the twin slit experiment), the wave function associated with any single detection is mathematically equivalent to the wave function for any other particle detection - ie. in the same solid state experiment. This does not mean they are the same (in a formal sense) - but it does mean one can recycle the math from such, for use in constructing a brand new wave function for prescribing a new particle detection - on the proviso that each is understood as a brand new wave function. But back to BPC. BPC concerns the "interference effect" which IS A STATISTICAL EFFECT. What Bohr was warning against was reading the formal wave function as a statistical effect - if only by definition - by it's very postulation as an a priori concept for predicting single particle detections. But in the Afshar experiment, the wave function (and the formalism) is not at issue. Michael wants it to be but he's wrong. One of the key strategys in the Afshar experiment is to produce an "interference effect" via the intensity of photons detections (per unit area of space or ideally at a point) rather than via the traditional method ie. by a statistical distribution of detections over space. It is the production of an "interference effect" and what's more it even prevents any "illegal" reconstruction of the wave function. And that is how it should be because that is what BPC is all about. It is about just such effects - and the conditions in which just such effects are physically realisable. On the other side is the path function. A semi-classical path not to be confused with Feynman's path integral. Feynman's path integral is a way of constructing the wave function. Bohr's path is a different beast. But it is not important here. I merely wish to show up how Michael's argument is confused at best and deliberately misleading at worst. --Carl A Looper 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While awaiting final deletion of the entire Ongoing debate section I've partially "deconflated" Michael's argument so that the first part does not run into and become "naturalised" by the second part. Furthermore I've given prominance to the quotes and less prominance to Michael's paraphrasing. --Carl A Looper 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I've put back clearer counter arguments and removed Michael's name from his arguments. --Carl A Looper 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Carl A Looper's attempt on 26 Mar to eliminate the entire Ongoing debate section. The content is confused and unattributed. Now that there is some meat in the Specific critiques section (which should perhaps be renamed, as well as extended and organized), I think it is much more useful. Carl seemed to be stopped mostly by technical problems and there didn't seem to be much outcry from the other editors, so I will now take on the task myself. --Art Carlson 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Afshar's vandalism

Dear Carl, and others. I agree that Afshar can edit the article, as far as, he does not insert personal offences on other authors. Afshar has claimed himself "expert in the field" and then edits the article by offending others like prof. T. Qureshi, who is really great scientist, has numerous contributions to QM, has shown that Afshar makes simple error in calculations, and has his article accepted in peer-reviewed journal, so let us peacufully expect this event (publication of Qureshi's work), and do not offend each others. Concerning the Progress in Physics, this is official article, peer-reviewed and published in the standard procedures, if Afshar wants to send rebuttal etc., he is free to do so, yet Wikipedia is NOT the place for PARTISAN WARS. Let us be solidary with each other and let Afshar edit the article, but as I said above, as far as he does not offend other people. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until and unless OR contained in the old disputed text # 4 is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, it should be removed from the article page. If the text remains in the footnotes, at the very least, the statement qualifying the status of the DQD "papers" (such as the one by Art Carlson) should remain to remind the readers of the lack of general support in physics community for their argument. As far as I know, no respectable journal would publish Qureshi's false and erroneous arguments. As for PP, we know what kind of a "journal" it is, the very fact that one ends up "publishing" in such a "journal" is rebuttal enough! -- Prof. Afshar 07:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Afshar, If I look above, I see only your offences, and I see no real argument against PP being good and reputable journal. Did the readers of Wikipedia need Afshar's approval of journals, if so, then post your request in Wiki, and by-the-way give us a list of all "Afshar's reputable" journals, just to know where to publish in the future. I guess at the very moment prof. Qureshi's paper appears, then the place will be also "Afshar's disreputable journal". Did someone ask you why Phys. Rev. Letts. REJECTED your manuscript? Did anyone ask why two other journals rejected it also, before appearing in Found. Phys. where traditionally violations of relativity articles are published - see Wesley, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 10, Nos. 5/6, 1980, 503-511 on Michelson-Morley, and other papers. Danko Georgiev MD 08:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update of Progress in Physics article

Well, all wiki-editors can read and judge for themselves. Curent text points to "e-prints" however my article has been released in reputable peer-review journal. If one is to be objective, then this must be incorporated and repaired. One must also remove any label on the authors. To classify who is notable, who is good scientist and who is bad scientist is not the topic in the main article. P.s. My article is indeed the first reputable source on Unruh's experiment, announcement about possible reply from Unruh, is also done on Progress In Physics web page http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/issues.html Danko Georgiev MD 06:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PP is reputable?! It publishes violations of known physical laws right and left. See above discusions on the issue.-- Prof. Afshar 07:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prominence of critics

Continuing with the "Specific critiques" section, I notice that all the references arguing the "erasure of information" are from non-refereed sources, so that inclusion (at least in the main text) should be based on the prominence of the authors. I haven't heard of any of them before, but at least Unruh and Motl have blue links. Would it be reasonable to just keep those two as representatives of this argument in the main text and to mention Kastner, Drezet, and Steuernagel in a footnoote? Also I do not find the quotations very enlightening. Wouldn't it be better to briefly say why they draw that conclusion? --Art Carlson 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, if you check the vol.3 for 2007 of PP here you will see that there is announced reply by Unruh. I have seen his preliminary draft, and I already sent back to Unruh locating an error of him. So, the Editor-In-Chief of PP is uncertain whether Unruh will re-submit, nevertheless the expected reply is announced now as "coming". The whole discussion better be solved by peer-reviewing and publishing in reputable journals. It took Afshar more than 2 years and half to publish, after series of rejections in top journals. Only now after Afshar's paper is published, not so famous journals, but still good enough [PP has editorial board of four top mathematicians], accept to discuss this experiment [previously no journal will discuss web blogs]. So after 3 months maybe we will see Unruh's reply, and possibly I will also be invited to answer, also prof. Qureshi's and mine work are submitted to other journals and if our analysis is correct, then it will be solved only on math grounds, and nothing will depend on the "notability" or "Wiki-notability" of the authors. As I see Afshar pushes too far his opinion, offends people, and boldly proclaims jimself as expert in the field. Well, Afshar has only 1 paper so far, compare prof. Tabish Qureshi's numerous contributions in QM. Also, prof. Tabish Qureshi is extremely honest physicist and a man, to reject working on Nuclear Weapons, and thus had to leave his previos job. I think everyone sees that Afshar is "promo" oriented and not "science" oriented. If he had disproof, he would have posted at least in arXiv, and would not have offended all of us as "disreputable", "publishing for money", etc. Indeed before my article was accepted Afshar was quite sure that I will never have accepted my work because it is "crackpotery", yet, even I have much more contributions [some of them invited] on topic of bio-physics and QM in biosystems. Afshar's sole paper, does not give him rights to proclaims everyone opposing his views as "crackpot". Please Update the links of my published paper, as well as Kastner's published paper - my edit was reverted by Afshar, despite of the fact that in two of my edits I have updated Kastner's work. I don't have time to do internet war. If one checks back my edits, he will find all the journal bibliography, etc. needed. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 10:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Over the next few years, I am sure science will take its course, and this article will be much easier to write in an way that all parties agree is NPOV. The case could be made that it is too early for any article at all on the Afshar experiment, precisely because there has not been time for the scientific community to respond through its official channels. I am looking for a compromise that allows our readers to find out about this interesting experiment, but also alternative interpretations of it. I agree that giving extra weight to blue links is an imperfect mechanism. It is not clear to me how you propose to deal with the situation until such time as peer-reviewed responses are available. (And please try to refrain from personal attacks on Prof. Afshar.) --Art Carlson 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Art, I have not personally attacked Afshar, he is the one who reverted my last edits on the published Kastner paper - published in Elsevier peer-review journal!, yet, Afshar wants to silence this fact. My work has been peer-reviewed and published in very good mathematical physics journal, so it is peer-reviewed verifiable source also, one can replace the link to my PhilSci preprint, which indeed has been completely revised in its style for the PP paper. So the relevant source is here
      Georgiev DD. Single photon experiments and quantum complementarity. Progress in Physics 2007; 2: 97-103.

Concerning prof. Tabish Qureshi one can insert the Wiki-link as it is brief and concize entry on his over two decades contributions on foundations of QM. Prof. Qureshi worked on almost all such foundational problems, as Popper's experiment, originally aimed to disprove Copenhagen view by sir Karl Popper who is an icon of XX century, another topic is the ghost interference in Many-worlds interpretation of QM, and now he has focused on Afshar's paradoxical claims. So I have suggested at least, 3 worth to be done things - inclusion of 2 peer-reviewed sources [check for Kastner's one in my main article edit reverted by Afshar as "vandalism"], ...

Do you mean this edit? Afshar didn't delete any references there. I don't recall seeing any peer-reviewed references from Kastner - only one preprint and one conference proceeding. --Art Carlson 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly this edit of Afshar. Please careful look, that he reverts this edit of mine - in RED letters - comprare the old, and newer version. I have added this peer-reviewed journal of kastner
         author = Kastner R 
         title = Why the Afshar experiment does not refute complementarity?
         journal = Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
         volume = 36 
         pages = 649–658
         year = 2005
note: Kastner has NOT updated her arXiv, yet the DOI and the paper provided by me are well peer-reviewede and verifiable. I am afraid you should be more cautious to monitor Afshar's reverts and edits.
OK. I see it now. Thanks. Can everyone read this link, or do we need to provide the arXiv link in addition? --Art Carlson 10:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

... and inclusion of wiki-link to Tabish Qureshi. ...

Done. --Art Carlson 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

... Also in my personal opinion there is no honest criterion that suggests part of the critiques to be moved as footnote, as they are peer-reviewed sources, concerning the notability of researchers notability is irrelevant for who is right or not. ...

And who is right or not is irrelevant for Wikipedia. WP:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." None of the sources in the footnote are peer-reviewed. --Art Carlson 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unless somebody updates the link of my published paper. It is provided above, so if you point to the PhilSci pre-print the above statement will be true. However the PhilSci paper is NOT anymore pre-print, as it has been printed in Progress in Physics, 2007; vol.2 with changed name, and slightly revised style of text. I think that deletion of the link to the PhilSci preprint and replacement with peer-reviewed and published paper is better. Danko Georgiev MD 09:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Good. I have updated your reference. I also agree that my qualification of the three "no info even if" references is problamatical, so I have deleted it pending further discussion. --Art Carlson 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

... The Wiki-entries are always created by people who admirate the contributions of someone, I personally exactly as you [Art] have never heard of Unruh and Motl, before reading in Wikipedia, and I am not impressed by their math inconsistent analysis of Afshar's setup. Nervertheless I do NOT force or push extreme views that their opinions on the topic be deleted, or moved as footnotes. Yes, their views remained on web blogs, and I believe in case when they are officially disproved neither Motl nor Unruh will bother of publishing officially their web thoughts. (Note: Unruh's setup is officially described in my peer-reviewed paper, while Motl's analysis is not mentioned anywhere except on his blog). However I personally think the Critiques section must be restored in its original form divided into two groups of objections, then all web links updated, and finally Afshar once and for all be banned from reverting the Critique section. As I clearly explained in previous posts, Afshar may edit concerning the meaning of his own papers, and on the experimental details of what he has done, but he must not put his Afshar's approval, on what others have said regarding Afshar's views. If a researcher publishes that Afshar's view is inconsistent, it is his own right to defend this position with the tools of mathematical logic. And this implies future mathematical discussion, not Afshar's views on the improtance of mathematics at first place, or Afshar's labeling of the opposing scientist with "crackpot" or other offensive names. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific critiques

In its current form the whole section is not logical. Before there were two groups of specific critiques, which were clearly separated by the criterion when the which way is erased (i.e. when the grid is put, or it is erased by the interference even if there is no grid). Now this information is deleted. And if there is no such criteria on the common priciple that grounds given opinion, then WHAT makes the critique of Unruh "specific"? Nothing! - the quotation says that "Bohr wouldn't have whatsoever problem". This is repeated 3 more times for the rest of the scientists. What is the common of their claims, is WHY Afshar claims are wrong, and this is what you [Art] and Afshar have deleted. To repeat in quotations that "Bohr wouldn't have whatsoever problem" several times is meaningless, as it does not say WHY Bohr wouldn't have the problem at first place. I think all these quotations should be deleted, and only reference to researcher's work be left. Concerning the statement that the "non-prominent" scientist work has not been peer-reviewed and published - it is a lie, and does not correspond to the truth. Also as prof. Qureshi now has wiki-entry, I am not sure why he is labelled as "non-prominent" yet others that do not even have wiki-entry are "prominent" as they remain in the main text. p.s. I do not suggest that the whole section should be a footnote. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that the quotes can be removed without loss of content (as I already said above). Any comments from the others? It would be better to add something on the reasoning, but I suggest we don't try to do everything at once. --Art Carlson 10:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the edits. At least some of the true information has been recovered. Now, I don't know what else Afshar may object, there are at least 2 peer-reviewed objections, as Kastner's appears in 2005 2 years before Afshar's paper sees "white day". Still, one may delete the not informative quotations, as well as this incorrect statement, footnote on no which way, "See, for example, the following preprints", it is wrong as the updated paper of mine is no more pre-print, but paper print journal. Soon I will have the new paper print volume as an author, so I will be able to deposit several journal copies in the University Library of Kanazawa University. Still, there are under peer-review works of mine and Qureshi, so let us not engage ourselves in a partisan war for that time. This is particularly relevant and request to Afshar, to stop offending the others for a while. Danko Georgiev MD 11:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected the statement about preprints so that it now only refers to Qureshi and Reitzner. I have added a parenthetical statement after your reference that Progress in Physics "prides itself on questioning orthodox views". I think that is a characterization that supporters and detractors can agree on. I think the nature of PP is sufficiently different from other scientific publications that a "disclaimer" of this sort is a service to the reader. --Art Carlson 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Art, are you making parody of PP? Where did you read this? As far as I know my proof defends the "orthodox views" while the Afshar's proof questions the "orthodox views". I consider your remark as offensive and parodizing my contribution as IF I am defending "un-orthodox" view. The PP journal sais that it publishes topics on physics of interest and related math issues. Please remove your comment as derogatory. We are not here to discuss which journal of what is proud. Also the Wiki-entry on PP is not really very nice in its form. Somebody has possibly in-appropriately inserted the quotation, I wouldn't myself included it at first place. I just updated the references, as always, my edits are mostly to provide the original sources, and I never delete factual information, except in cases where obvious violations of Wiki-policy appears. Your remark on PP is highly subjective, hence not appropriate for Wikipedia. Readers themselves can click on the PP link and read and decide for themselves. Danko Georgiev MD 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
p.s. I have myself re-edited the wiki-text on Progress in Physics, as the remark was possibly written by person with ill intentions aiming at pushing some personal attitude, which is not acceptable. The home page of PP clearly states the objectives of the journal, and I see nowhere to be written that all kind of "crack-pottery" is acceptable for publishing. I still think that offending journals, is not suitable discussion for Wikipedia. Let us wait, and see future works are to be published soon, prof. Qureshi has already announced that his article is accepted, mine second paper is under peer-review. Danko Georgiev MD 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
p.s. 2 I have found remark done by user Ckerr so I have posted note on his talk page, that I have reverted his edits. Dear Art, please delete the comment as the "pride of the journal" reflects the mentioned user Ckerr personal OR. Danko Georgiev MD 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The quotation on "orthodox views" came from the section "Article 7: Freedom of disagreement in scientific discussion" in the Declaration of Academic Freedom signed by "Dmitri Rabounski, Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Physics". I see no reason to doubt that that is an accurate indication of the POV of this journal. --Art Carlson 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the quotation out of context, Talk:Progress_in_Physics. Danko Georgiev MD 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Art, let us discuss this topic at the PP talk page. Quoting out of context is bad quoting, and pushes OR views and usually not-good intentions. Please note that I am academic scholar, PhD researcher at the moment in neuroscience, and I am word-by-word acquainted with ALL sections of the mentioned Academic Declaration, as I did the Bulgarian translation for free, as a protest of the nonsense going on in science. My PhD topic has been changed into one that I dislike [i.e. not like too much?], every journal with impact factor above 3, not only checks your affiliations, and the "notable co-authors with you" so that hardly be called science. The main idea of the whole Declaration should be understood after complete reading from A to Z. The stress is on fair science, and judging on solely scientific grounds, and not on extra-scientific factors as notability, money-invested, etc. The Declaration does not say all crackpots are wellcome to publish with us. The declaration implies that crackpot work will be rejected because of logical inconsistency, and not on grounds of lack of eduation, or lack of affiliation. Yes, this requires at least the peer-reviewer to read the submitted mnuscript first. In IOP journal Pure and Applied Optics, my paper was returned in 24 h with note "Dear author, unfortunately your article topic is outside the scope of the journal". I am not afraid to confess that, this is commercialized publishing. Bad is, when journal returns peer-review comments that clearly show that your work is nonsense. . Danko Georgiev MD 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. This topic is irrelevant for this talk page, I have seen your edits on PP, so I fully AGREE. Yet, please now revert your edits of (preprint), (the journal prides ..). etc notes, see the section below. Otherwise, I request you to insert also full categorization of all sources, so 3 new labels are to appear - (blogs), (not peer-reviewed proceedings), and (yellow press). I hope you realize what my true point is. Danko Georgiev MD 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's such a ridiculous idea to give a one-link characterization of the nature of our sources. It would help readers that are not at all familiar with the nature of scientific publications. For sophisticated readers, "arXiv" is enough. I will remove the preprint designation for consistency pending further discussion.
The note on PP is more difficult. A reader who has not heard of PP - and most have not - will assume that it is a mainline journal. To put this reference into proper perspective, it is important to know that the philosophy of PP differs significantly from that of other publications. You make this very point in your comments above. I have tried to formulate this is a NPOV way by quoting from the Declaration. Would you like to suggest a more appropriate characterization? We will in any case continue to discuss PP on Talk:Progress in Physics. --Art Carlson 09:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please find me exactly where is said "This journal prides itself on questioning orthodox views". Thanx! Danko Georgiev MD 09:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The word "prides itself" was my editorial choice, not a direct quote. Looking back at the Declaration, I feel this phrase is accurate and NPOV. Would you like to suggest an alternative? --Art Carlson 10:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Second question, why prof. Qureshi's link is in the footnote, and Drezet is in the main article? Just wondering - me and Drezet have no great scientific background as both of us are youngsters below 30 years, yet prof. Qureshi has big enough academic record, as he is already awarded PhD, in contrast with me and Drezet. Also Qureshi has a Wiki-link, in contrast to Sternaugel who is completely unfamousm, not to mention that his analysis is subject to objections Danko Georgiev MD 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the fact that Drezet does not have a PhD (which I didn't know) is an argument that he is not a prominent expert and therefore should perhaps be mentioned only in a footnote. I am, however, surprized that you argue that way, considering that the Declaration seems to have low regard for formal qualifications. --Art Carlson 10:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not argueing in that way! I am testing what are the limits of your honesty in applying your own criteria! For me whether Drezet has PhD or not is NOT relevant. If I cared about notabilities, I would never have argued against Unruh. Yet, I am expecting that Unruh will withdraw his flawed letter, announced in PP, so that the whole issue is decided once and for all. Neverhteless I think there is more interesting events to come in PP, in the dialogue Georgiev vs. Unruh, instead of posting here offenses on journals, etc. p.s. I quit from this discussion, provided no personal attacks against my name appear in the talk. Danko Georgiev MD 10:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You created the Wiki page for Qureshi. The main problem however is the fact that DQD espouse a thesis (lack of WWI without wires in Wheeler's setup) that is a much bigger claim than violation of BPC. In fact I believe the entire DQD ref.s should be moved to the article on Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, as they are actually questioning him and all the physics world by proxy.-- Prof. Afshar 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "pre-print" labels for arXiv

I think all this quite un-necessary, as it pushes bad meanings. Everyone knows that arXiv is pre-print. Redundancy of such info, is like underline the fact, with possibly bad meaning. Imagine what will look-like to put after Unruh's and Motls's posts in brackets the following remakr: (web blogs). Is it aesthetic? Is this extra info manifesting good intention. Will anyone vote for inserting this (web blogs) after Unruh's and Motl's posts? And what about characterization of Drezet's preprint? Why it has no label? And what about putting After Afshar's two proceesings this labels "(proceedings)" and after the New Scietist and Cramer's Analog column this label (yellow press)? I vote for removing all this extra categorization of sources. One can check them without any prejudice and decide for himself. Danko Georgiev MD 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect text

"But in the Afshar experiment it is actually impossible to reconstruct a pseudo-wave function from Afshar's particle detections." I don't want to check who has written this text, but it is obvious misunderstanding of physics. If you don't know the wavefunction of the setup, how can you calculate and predict the outcome? The text is erroneous, and represents one's own thought activity, i.e. OR. I hope the person who inserted this reverts/deletes himself this text. Explanation: physical theories have major purpose to predict the future outcomes of physical experiment, the theories do not have major purpose to be tested or recovered by experiments. All theories say more that can be derived by experiment, that is why theories have explanatory power. Wave-function Ψ is NOT observable, what is observable is | Ψ | 2, so the wavefunction is constructed by the theory, given that you know the conditions of the original setup. The wavefunction is NOT reconstructed with what you observe as | Ψ | 2. So the wavefunction is NOT constructible by the observations, it is constructible [at 100%] from the theory plus the setup conditions. That is why what you will observe does NOT change the conclusions/predictions of the QM formalism. Arithmetics cannot be disproved by experiment - see the basics of math logic. Observations can prove/disprove only the standard QM formalism as "corresponding to reality", but this is another issue. That is why Bohr's complementarity cannot be experimentally disproved without experimentally disproving QM formalism first, yet this is another topic. Danko Georgiev MD 06:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A pseudo wave function is not the same thing as the wave function. PLEASE DO NOT CONFLATE THE TWO IN YOUR ARGUMENT. A pseudo wave function CAN be reconstructed from detector data. The wave function can't since it is an a priori concept. By way of analogy one can reconstruct the pseudo-radius of a circle already drawn on a peice of paper. The actual radius is the one used to draw the circle in the first place. Both the pseudo-radius and the radius, as here explained, in extraordinarily simple language, are both profound and deep scientific concepts. --Carl A Looper 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Carl, my sincere regards, however the word "pseudo-wavefunction" is NOT a term in the standard QM formalism. I didn't understand what this term implies, and as this is NEVER used in standard texts on QM, it appears to be your original idea. It is not my fault, that without explicit note I didn't recognize your original thoughts. I hope this clarifies, a lot. Concerning your paper, if you want, I can discuss in e-mail, I do believe as I usually formulate my claims in very strict math language, we can discuss and enjoy the dialogue, as we will exchange meningful information. Danko Georgiev MD 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that, unlike the twin slit experiment, from which one can derive a pseudo-wave function, the same can not be said about the Afshar experiment. In other words, any warning regarding reconstruction of pseudo wave functions, from detector data, and the possibility of confusing such with the wave function, is only relevant to the twin slit experiment - not the Afshar experiment - since in the Afshar experiment, a pseudo wave function is not constructible. Hope you understand. --Carl A Looper 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just re-read the quote to see what is causing the confusion and am surprised to find no confusion whatsover. Here is the full quote:
Bohr's "interference effect" is, in his own words, a statistical effect (see below). An interference effect is not the same thing as the wave function. One should not (normally) attempt to reconstruct a wave function from an ensemble of photon detections. Such reconstructions will invariably be psuedo-wave functions - especially in non-solid state experiments. But in the Afshar experiment it is actually impossible to reconstruct a pseudo-wave function from Afshar's particle detections.
Can critics please take off their blinkers when scanning text for errors and actually READ texts at the paragraph level - at the very least. --Carl A Looper 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And just so we're clear here is reproduced a previous commentary (from the talk pages) on this point:
One of the major problems with Michael's argument is that he conflates an "interference effect" with the wave function, and an "observed particle" with "tracing a path". The formalism embodys the wave function - it does not embody (in a formal sense) the "interference effect". The interference effect is, of course, predicted by the formalism. Now BPC (and Afshar's experiment) is more specifically, about the "interference effect" and it's supposed complementary relationship with the construction (tracing) of a semi-classical path (rather than a particle detection per se). Drezet's argument is an important one which Michael mangles. According to Bohr (which Drezet notes) one can not reconstruct the wave function from a set of individual particle detections. One can, of course, reconstruct composite or "pseudo-wave functions". And this happens quite a lot in information theoretic terms. But in Afshar's experiment, unlike the conventional twin slit experiment, it is actually impossible to reconstruct even a pseudo-wave function. In many ways Afshar's experiment is better than the twin slit experiment since it elliminates the very possibility of reconstructing a pseudo-wave function (I'm ignoring the minor fourier components discernible). In other words, Bohr's warning is actually irrelevant here. Another important point is that, in solid state experiments such as the Afshar experiment, (and the twin slit experiment), the wave function associated with any single detection is mathematically equivalent to the wave function for any other particle detection - ie. in the same solid state experiment. This does not mean they are the same (in a formal sense) - but it does mean one can recycle the math from such, for use in constructing a brand new wave function for prescribing a new particle detection - on the proviso that each is understood as a brand new wave function. But back to BPC. BPC concerns the "interference effect" which IS A STATISTICAL EFFECT. What Bohr was warning against was reading the formal wave function as a statistical effect - if only by definition - by it's very postulation as an a priori concept for predicting single particle detections. But in the Afshar experiment, the wave function (and the formalism) is not at issue. Michael wants it to be but he's wrong. One of the key strategys in the Afshar experiment is to produce an "interference effect" via the intensity of photons detections (per unit area of space or ideally at a point) rather than via the traditional method ie. by a statistical distribution of detections over space. It is the production of an "interference effect" and what's more it even prevents any "illegal" reconstruction of the wave function. And that is how it should be because that is what BPC is all about. It is about just such effects - and the conditions in which just such effects are physically realisable. On the other side is the path function. A semi-classical path not to be confused with Feynman's path integral. Feynman's path integral is a way of constructing the wave function. Bohr's path is a different beast. But it is not important here. I merely wish to show up how Michael's argument is confused at best and deliberately misleading at worst. --Carl A Looper 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So you see, if only on this point, (regarding detector defined "wave functions") we really should be in agreement with each other. --Carl A Looper 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing debate

The whole section was voted for deletion, as it was written by editors, who even don't have any scientific contribution to QM or at least to Afshar's experiment. Still I expect to see Carl Looper's forthcoming paper promised in 2006, yet until then, I don't think that specific critiques section must be 3 times shorter than the non-expert written ongoing debate section. Danko Georgiev MD 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Delete the whole thing. But someone else needs to do it - but without destroying the links. Re - scientific contribution. It is true that I haven't completed my paper but there is far more material I need to go through than a re-exposition of the QM formalism. I'm writing from the point of view of information theory (a well defined science) and in particular signal theory - and even more specifically, - semiotics. The main problem is this. In terms of the QM formalism alone, one could argue that no "interference effect" can be said to have taken place in the Afshar experiment since the shape of the wave function, which normally determines the presence/absence of an interference effect (at the detector site) is determined only by the apertures and lens/detector arrangement - the wires playing no role whatsoever in shaping the wave function. And since the shape of the wave function, at the detector site no longer carrys any intrinsic interference information (other than minor fourier components) one must conclude that no "interference effect" is demonstrated. But if one is to claim an "interference effect", then one must look wider than the formalism, back in the setup - which is where Bohr is otherwise pre-occupied. And sure enough - there are the wires. We can't erase our knowledge of the wires - but the wave function does - insofar as it never carrys any information regarding the wires in the first place. What we find is that it is the combination of our knowledge regarding the wires (a pre wave function structure), and the information embodied in the data (the intensity level) , plus our understanding of the wave function, which collectively construct our conclusion that an "interference effect" is demonstrated. But this can't be demonstrated by the QM formalism. It can, however, be demonstrated in terms of what Bohr is talking about. And what Bohr is talking about, as well as Heisenberg, involves a good deal of theory beyond the formalism. And to expose such requires a good deal of research which I can only lightly touch upon here in the hope that someone else is capable of picking up on it. For everyone else they must wait for the paper and reponder their equations. --Carl A Looper 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

There was an error in the introduction regarding the Greenberger-Yasin relationship. I corrected the text to factually reflect my claims that is mentioned in section 5 of the Found. Phys. paper. Here's the new text with the changes in boldface: "...appears to be in accordance with the standard predictions of quantum mechanics, however, it is claimed to violate the Englert-Greenberger duality relation." -- Prof. Afshar 12:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kastner

Kastner writes:

Nevertheless, even with the grid removed, since the photon is prepared in a superposition S, the measurement at the final screen at t2 never really is a "which-way" measurement....

That's about as clear as can be that she doesn't belong in the "grid erases info" camp but in the "never any WWI" camp. I think it will be necessary to move her and to resurrect that point of view from the footnote back into the regular text. Any comments before I do that? --Art Carlson 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, my regards, but Kastner's argument is flawed. It is NOT the superposition that erases the which way. Imagine AS AFSHAR POINTED OUT the two non-overlapping beams, for example arm 1 and 2 of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, or the two slit beams before they overlap i.e. very close to the slit. Yes, they are superposied in the form Ψ = α1 | 1 > + α2 | 2 > , however because |1> and |2> are NON-OVERLAPPING i.e. orthogonal, at this stage the ww info is NOT erased, as these two wavefunctions [kets, |1> and |2>] do NOT manifest interference effects. Only after the overlap region the ww info is erased. This is clearly expressed in the equations 3 and 4 in my published article. As you have PhD in physics, you can check for yourself the calculations, they are not too complex after all. Danko Georgiev MD 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. Kastner consulted Cramer, and Cramer said the ww info is there in many articles and lectures of him! So "never really" if understood literally, then Kastner should provide thesis exactly opposite to Cramer, yet Cramer was one of the consusltants. I am not sure whether Kastner has clear idea of what she is proposing. Simply if she relies only on superposition to erase the ww info, then she provides wrong argument, which is to be classified in 3rd group, separately! Danko Georgiev MD 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We are not discussing here whether Kastner is right or not, simply that her argument is improperly characterized in the current version. In addition, I don't think your description here is accurate. She is not saying that the superposition erases which-way-information, but that the wave function always contains both "ways" - at the slits, at the wires, in front of the detector, all the way up till the collapse of the wavefunction in the detection process. --Art Carlson 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Art, the which way concept is one-to-one correspondence concept. It has nothing to do directly with superposition of paths, i.e. much more other stuff is needed in order to prove the required bijection. Superposition existent or not, by itself is not directly linked to idea of bijection. For bijection, you must at first define two sets mathematically, then you must verify they have the same cardinality, and then describe a mapping. See bijection for details. I had the impression that Cramer was major consultant of Castner, so I thought that Kastner supports Cramer's view which are exactly clear for which way. Of course all these objections from this group are math inconsistent, so I am not surprized that confusions arise. p.s. feel free to classify Kastner's work any way you like. And reply to Afshar, yes there are two camps of objections, the fact that Kastner does not fit anywhere, is simply because her analogy is hardly seen or understood by anybody, as it is provably incorrect. In contrast Unruh's setup is crystally clear in disproving Afshar's analysis, however not in the way originally proposed by Unruh. Danko Georgiev MD 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The "grid erases info" was put there by Danko to create an illusion of two major camps! The fact is the arguments presented by Unruh, Motl, Kastner, Drezet and others in that section are varied, subtle and usually contradictory to the other critics' argument. Kastner is using Cramer's Transactional Interpretation discussing an allegedly analogous experiment using Spin 1/2 particles and Stern-Gerlach apparatus. I have previously discussed the lack of analogy between my experiment and her suggested one's at the APS March 2006 meeting chaired by Prof. Greenberger, and separately my colleagues have responded to her in http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702210. Her argument is very different from the fringe DQD argument, which is questioning the conservation of momentum argument espoused by Einstein and later used by Wheeler discussed in the article on Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. I suggest we remove the "grid erases info" from the text, and leave the fringe DQD argument in the footnotes, until they publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. BTW/ Unruh is a very famous and well-respected theoretical physicists who worked with Hawking and Davies (see Unruh effect)...-- Prof. Afshar 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And Tabish Qureshi is famous and well-known researcher, who has disproved many other incorrectly solved foundational problems in QM. Now it seems to have spotted another incorrect solution done by Afshar et alia, that has been properly solved and math inconsistency revealed. Danko Georgiev MD 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


It seems that once again D. Georgiev try to monopolize the discussion here. I have only two comments concerning his paper . First, watching the submission date (march 01 )and the acceptance date (march 05) it is celar that there is no reviewing process . Also it means that this paper is not more valuable that a preprint on arxiv. It would be nice if danko could calm down a bit and simply be open for other points of view. Secondly, (but this is a detail ) the fact that Tabish Qureshi is famous or not is not relevant in your argumentation because Unruh for exampl is for sure much more known. Reference to specialist as proof per se is not science (this is a well known fact) and this works in both directions Drezet 10:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Drezet, I am "copying" Afshar's argument, as it is one of my favourite ways to lead discussion, use the tools of the opponet, and force him into self-contradiction. Please comment on Afshar, not me. BTW, acceptance date with 2 years delay, is NOT a criterion either. I am exhausted to point out that science is to be decided in scientific way. Danko Georgiev MD 11:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You guys, have nice time here. Continue to be "objective" wiki-editors, I will not lose my precious time here. I VOTE for Afshar being able to edit the article any way he likes, and retract my previous vote for him to be banned from editing the Critique section. Regards to all, Danko Georgiev MD 11:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably no one will object to your removing the reference to your work, but I hope you realize that the editors have every right to put it back if they want to. --Art Carlson 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] additional references

Qureshi writes:

As expected, there has been skepticism towards Afshar’s experiment, and a heated debate is currently going on7,8,9,10,11.

7 “Why the Afshar Experiment Does Not Refute Complementarity” R. E. Kastner, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0502021.

8 “Logical analysis of the Bohr Complementarity Principle in Afshar’s experiment un- der the NAFL interpretation” R. Srinivasan, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0504115.

9 “Complementarity and Afshar’s experiment” A. Drezet, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0508091.

10 “Afshar’s Experiment does not show a Violation of Complementarity” O. Steuernagel, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0512123.

11 “Entanglement and quantum interference” P. O’Hara, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0608202.

I was always a bit worried about the possibility that our choice of criticisms could be biased, so I am grateful for a verifiable selection. We already have Kastner, Drezet, and Steuernagel. I will now add Srinivasan and O'Hara. --Art Carlson 09:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/f/s/Talk%7EAfshar_experiment_13df.html"