Content deleted Content added
Line 673:
There's too much of XYZ's objections and Afshar responses. I think they should be deleted and replaced with references to blogs and other websites. However, I also think it is fair to add the statement ''the preponderance of scientific opinion is that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity''. I don't like use of "opinion" here but I can't think of a better word that would conform to NPOV policy. --[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 16:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I'd certainly support that. As it is, the article is more personal-bloggish than encyclopedic. -- [[User:Reuben|Reuben]] 18:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Line 679 ⟶ 678:
::: I recently gave a talk at a physics conference in Vaxjo University in Sweden, where the majority (30+ physicists) agreed with my conclusion that the common reading of Bohr's Complementarity principle (based on the current literature) is ruled out. Some initial objections were replaced by acceptance of my conclusion upon further discussion after the talk. So I certainly disagree with the sentence ''the preponderance of scientific opinion is that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity''. That is the opinion of a few vociferous opponents, not the scientific community. Also, the paper has been accepted for publication in Proc. SPIE 5866, 229-244 (July 2005): http://bookstore.spie.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=DetailVolume&productid=604724 . This and other publications in the works, as well as the growing list of supporters of the work (see my earlier entries for a partial list) reflect the fact that although my experiment/conclusion is controversial, it is aptly viewed by the major practitioners of the field as a revealing and relevant one vis-a-vis the discourse on the foundations of QM. As mentioned before, any claims regarding "the preponderance of scientific opinion" without a scientific polling of the experts in the field would be baseless and irresponsible. At this point the majority seem to be agnostic rather than antagonistic. I suggest all those who have made their opposition publicly available to attend my talk at the upcoming SPIE meeting in San Diego, where I would have the opportunity to address their comments in person. Simply put, the fat lady has not song yet despite the opinions of some. Nonetheless, replacing the long Contoversy section with web links is a good idea. You may also wish to include the Proc. SPIE ref. for the paper which also includes further suggested experiments.--[[User:Afshar|Afshar]] 01:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::: '''Reply to Afshar''': You will note that I have tried to keep my personal opinion regarding your interpretation of the experiment out of this discussion. I have tried to base my edits and comments clearly on what others have stated. However, I think your claim that this ''is the opinion of a few vociferous opponents'' is a bit disingenuous. Moreover I was the one that made the comment earlier in this discussion that
::::: ''A few words in the introduction bother me, particularly "many physicists" are skeptical which I believe should be "most physicists" are skeptical. However, I have not conducted a scientific poll, and I am sure that fact would be brought to my attention.''
:::: Indeed, you just did bring it to my attention as I expected. However, I do not regard this as you do as ''being baseless and irresponsible''. Your evidence in support of this last assertion is purely anecdotal. In any case I suggest that we wait for more comments from other interested parties on this page. If worse comes to worse I will request deletion of the entire page.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 20:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| |||