Talk:Afshar experiment

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Afshar experiment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Template:Calm talk

Physics B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:TrollWarning

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.

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.

Archives

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Why Afshar is allowed to bring any topic he likes???

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

Ummm...I'll stay out of this. Sdirrim 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dispute pieces 5,6

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Specifically, which part is unclear? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You tell me. --Carl A Looper 22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not prepared to back your claims up, eh? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Unreliable sources in disputed text #4

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Afshar, you know that conflict of interest issues forbid you from editting the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Specific critiques

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

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^[1] and FAQ.^[2] "

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)Reply

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)Reply

• The above text removed by vandalism, has been restored in the interest of neutrality. -- Prof. Afshar 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I vote let Afshar edit the article. --Carl A Looper 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)

Disputed piece #4 condensed and moved to footnote

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Ongoing debate

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Good grief. Ok. --Carl A Looper 06:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

On Afshar's vandalism

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Update of Progress in Physics article

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Prominence of critics

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

... 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

... 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)Reply

Specific critiques

Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I have reverted the quotation out of context, Talk:Progress_in_Physics. Danko Georgiev MD 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"pre-print" labels for arXiv

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Incorrect text

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

"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 ${\displaystyle \Psi }$  is NOT observable, what is observable is ${\displaystyle |\Psi |^{2}}$ , 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 ${\displaystyle |\Psi |^{2}}$ . 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Ongoing debate

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Introduction

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Kastner

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

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 ${\displaystyle \Psi =\alpha _{1}|1>+\alpha _{2}|2>}$ , 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

additional references

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Qureshi writes:

As expected, there has been skepticism towards Afshar’s experiment, and a heated debate is currently going on^7,8,9,10,11.

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)Reply

Recent improvements

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you to both Art and Carl. The new specific critiques section is now logically structured, and carries useful information regarding the crux of each author's criticism. My hat's off to Art for having spent a good deal of time and effort to actually read and reflect upon each entry. Now, from a NPOV standpoint, I believe it would be necessary to inform the reader of my rebuttals to each. But before that, I'd like to ask one of the editors to add a small graphics and short description of an experiment (explained in the AIP paper) that was performed to simplify the experiment and use the conservation laws more clearly. I call it the Crossed Beams experiment in which no imaging lens is used. Please let me know who would like to take on this task, and I will provide the graphics that needs to be reformatted to the Wiki version. I'm not well-versed in the process myself! We discuss the related text here first. Thanks. P.S Qureshi paper should be properly flagged as a fringe argument, one which Unruh and all experts in the field reject. More importantly, it belongs in the article on Wheeler's delayed choice experiment since he actually criticizes Wheeler's setup and arguments, not mine... -- Prof. Afshar 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Carlson's edit on Unruh is FALSE

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Carlson: "In other words, he [Unruh] accepts the existence of an interference pattern but rejects the existence of which-way information."

Note - this is EXACTLY 1-to-1 formulation of Georgiev's thesis, NOT of Unruh's thesis, see below for details

Dear Carlson, obviously you make BIG error in claiming that Unruh rejected the "which way" claim. What is written is exactly one-to-one MY OWN WORK. I can send you also the submitted to PP comment by Unruh, and my send you personal correspondation from Unruh, and you can even find exact claim that if there is NO obstacle on path 5, the which way information exists. Please be aware of what you are writing, as the current opinion on Unruh's setup is MY OWN conclusion, conclusions of Unruh are exactly the opposite. Read the PP article, for details, and compare my thesis vs. Unruh's thesis. I insist at least NOT to present my opinion as Unruh's opinion. This is a lie, and misleads the readers. If this "parody" continues, I am fully in my right to send complaint to editor of PP, and request, speeding up of on-line release of Unruh's comment, so that everything will be clarified. In the PP comment and in letters to me and the Editor of PP Unruh said "states |1> and |2> are the eigenstates of detectors D1 and D2, respectively, so they are orthogonal and there is which way information". I believe my request for you to immediately repair your false posting is acceptable, as now I am speaking about verifiable historic facts, as all these exchanges are officially received by prof. Rabounski, and are hence official peer-reviewed scientific discussion. Danko Georgiev MD 07:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• For the recrod, Danko is right about Prof. Unruh's argument. -- Prof. Afshar 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

p.s. Additional clarifying (for non-acquainted reader)

• Unruh says [i] IF there is no obstacle on path 5, [ii] there IS interference PLUS [iii] there IS "which way" because "states |1> and |2> are the eigenstates of detectors D1 and D2" - (I have proved this is INCONSISTENT mathematically)
• Unruh says [i] IF one puths obstacle on path 5, [ii] there is interference, BUT [iii] there is NO "which way"
• Georgiev thesis - in both cases, obstacle on path 5, or obstacle NOT present on path 5, there is interference and there is NO which way. (i.e. Georgiev thesis = Qureshi's thesis = that the existent interference deletes the which way, not the obstacle put on the path) The fact that there is NO obstacle does NOT change the mathematical calculation of the evolution of the quantum amplitudes. The obstacle at path 5 changes nothing, as it is located in region where the amplitudes are destructively interfering so quantum amplitude is ZERO already. My mathematical proof in PP is rigorous in showing "states |1> and |2> are NEVER eigenstates of detectors D1 and D2 in COHERENT SETUP"

ONLY in MIXED STATE SETUP i.e. where one involves polarization filters, the "states |1> and |2> are the eigenstates of detectors D1 and D2" - for curious readers, this is due to external entanglements with the polarization filters [Zeh 2000, Zurek 2003, Tegmark and Wheeler 2001], and we speak of reduced density matrices in this case Danko Georgiev MD 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, welcome back. It sounds like you would like to put the reference to your article back in. Is that the case? As for any private correspondence among you, Unruh, and Rabounski, that is not verifiable and thus cannot be used as a basis for a Wiki article until it is published. (Although it could possibly help clarify misunderstandings.) As for my paraphrase of Unruh's position, I can't see any other way to interpret the line I quoted. You state that Unruh believes there is which-way information as long as there is no obstacle in the dark path. Can you attribute that position to any particular statement on Unruh's website? --Art Carlson 08:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is NOT well, as I did NOT want to back. However seeing MY OWN work, to be misattributed to Unruh, this is something I have least expected!!!! After all, take into account that I am involved in this study since 2004, and I am scientist at first place - I never lie on what others have said. I DO NOT WANT MY PAPER BACK. I WANT YOU TO REVERT YOUR FALSE POST. HERE IS THE PROOF - EXACT QUOTATION FROM "Q-REBEL" by W.G. UNRUH:

"Similarly, in figure 1a, a similar situation is true if beam 1 is blocked so that photons only traverse path 2 and all of those photons finally fall on the detector in path 6. This is thus in analogy with Afshar's system where the lens is designed so that travel through slit 1 falls on photo-detector 5 and travel through slit 2 falls on photo-detector 6. The measurement of the final ___location of the photon thus would tell us which path, 1 or 2, the photon followed... The system is arranged so that the interference at the second half silvered mirror is such that now all of the photons go on path 3. path 4, like the dark fringes in Afshar's setup, contains no photons. These will fall on detectors 5 and 6. Furthermore, one can still argue that any photon which fell on detector 5 came from path 1 and those on 6 came from 2."

Unruh speaks here on case where NO obstacle is there [attention: in Unruh's article the obstacle is put on path labelled as 4, in my PP paper the nomeration is a little bit different, so for MY paper the path with interference has the label 5!]. The detectors in Unruh's bolded words provide which way information for the path 1 or 2. Before you ironically comment me, please be sure you have read really the already available source. I NEVER post without having in mind EXACT QUOTATION. Please remember this fact, Regards Danko Georgiev MD 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. Obviously for me, you have analized yourself the setup, so you have reached to my conclusions [as logically following] and then you have misattributed the correct analysis to Unruh, without being aware of the fact that Unruh claims exactly the opposite. If Unruh have said what you have summarized [and you well can verify from my published paper, that what you have written is 1-to-1 Georgiev's thesis sec 3.2, page 100, PP], then I would never have published my paper at first place - because I will not say something new. Danko Georgiev MD 09:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the position attributed to me in the current article is misleading. IF there is no impediment in the paths ( wires in Afshar's experiment and blockage in path 5 in my description) then the detection at the detectors IS a measurement, in the sense of von Neuman, of the "which way" information of whether the photon went along paths 1 or 2. IF there is a an impediment then you can no longer infer from the detection which way the photon went. Ie, what you can infer from the detection of the photons at the detectors depends on what the experimental setup is. WG Unruh(1 Apr 2007)

All sides agree that I misread Unruh. I took another stab at it. Happy now? --Art Carlson 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Other than that in the section on Luboš Motl you claim that I reject which way information in all cases, sure. W Unruh Apr 2 07

Have I got it right now? --Art Carlson 07:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the specific critiques

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I am very glad that removing my work, restored back all the critiques in the main article. So thank you Art! I have seen insertion of researcher's that propose very bizzare and hardly understandable "novel" versions of QM analyzing Afshar, accept "paradoxes" etc. For the sake of truthness you have missed one such "novel" paper by professor Matti Pitkänen Double Slit Experiment and Classical Non-determinism. The proposal of prof. Matti Pitkänen for those who even slightly understand QM formalism is ULTRA Afshar's, as Matti Pitkänen SUPPORTS Afshar like Cramer. Matti Pitkänen says "If the possibility of macroscopic quantum entanglement between measurement instrument and quantum system is accepted, complementary principle becomes un-necessary.". For me this is pseudoscience, as all the math clothing does NOT lead to this ULTRA-Afshar conclusion, however as the author is Ph.D. in physics, I might well be wrong in my judgement. prof. Matti Pitkänen is the sole author of novel TGD theory. I hope I have helped with some good INFO. Afshar may well vote that prof. Matti Pitkänen works supports Afshar's claims! And for Art, surprizingly professor Matti Pitkänen has a Wiki-entry! Strange world, isn't it? So according to Art's criteria the paper should be necessarily be inserted in the main article. Danko Georgiev MD 09:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "acceptance of paradoxes". Finding or otherwise demonstrating a paradox is not the same thing as accepting that paradox. When Einstein proposed the EPR experiment it represented a subtle change in direction with respect to what he was hoping to achieve. In EPR Einstein sought to demonstrate a paradox in QM. This does not mean he wanted to accept such a paradox. If one can demonstrate a paradox it is simply the construction of a problem - something to solve. But according to Bohr there is no paradox in EPR since the "paradox" (or pseudo paradox) only occurs when the two datasets (Alice and Bob) have been combined and a correlation found. The correlation implys FTL but this can not be physically demonstrated until the two datasets are combined. And this combination can't occur until the information (Alice and Bob), travelling at conventional sub-light speed, can reach each other, ie. by which time superluminal flow of information has failed. Weird as it is. If one can demonstrate a paradox then one next step is simply to solve that paradox - if it's not already solved within the scope of QM. This is not to accept the paradox. For example, Bohr's solution to the EPR "paradox" is to turn our attention to the information signified by the QM formalism - away from the formalism itself. And that is one of the directions QM can take - into information theory. To explore the information side of the equations (the pseudo wave functions, etc). The other is something akin to Einstein's agenda where the formalism itself is targeted for revision, re-scoping or re-engineering by firstly identifying a paradox and then, secondly, re-solving such. And, of course, one could pursue both directions. --Carl A Looper 00:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

From the point of view I'm adopting there is no paradox in the Afshar experiment. A suitably prepared wave function interacting with the experimental specification predicts no "interference effect" will be observed in the detector data. And none is (other than minor ones). But when you connect the detector data with the presence of the wires (ie. with the specification of such) an "interference effect" is produced. And BPC implys one should therfore see no which way information. But lets just stay with the interference effect. Unlike EPR, the wire specification is not something that has to arrive anywhere. It is omni-present. It is embedded in the epistomological conditions (the setup) which determine how the wave function is conventionally prepared - but the wire spec is redundant data as it does not affect the wave function. In information theory the wire specification can be regarded as "client-side" data that is ignored by a wave function "server". Or not passed as arguments to it in the first place. Only the aperture states and lens are processed by the wave function server. As a result the server returns a "no interference result". The problem is that this result can still be passed back through the client specification - which includes the wire spec - resulting in a client side "interference effect". The server can't be used to predict that aspect of the client side setup (the wires) to which it is a priori oblivious. So it can't be used to predict what the combination of that data, and the detector data (which it can predict) would produce. --Carl A Looper 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's an even simpler analogy. Suppose we have a machine gun, with a fixed frequency of bullets per second, firing bullets into a single spot on a wall. Using such a spec we can design a shutter in front of the machine gun, that opens and closes in syncronisation with the machine gun, the phase offset being such that it is always open when a bullet fires. And the shutter can operate at any harmonic of the gun's frequency (up to a certain point). Well, from the bullet holes in the opposite wall we can't tell what the frequency of the machine gun was - nor the frequency of the shutter. There is no "interference effect" as such. But from the phase/frequency of the shutter, and the fact that all bullets arrived at the wall (no bullets hit the shutter) we can conclude the machine gun was indeed firing at some harmonic of the shutter frequency (and vice versa). From the spec of the machine gun we can predict the magnitude of the hole in the wall. From the spec of the shutter we can predict that the shutter will have no effect on this magnitude. But we can't predict, from the spec of the machine gun, or the shutter's spec, the exact frequency of the other. But we can conclude they must have been syncronised at some (if unknown) harmonic - which is effectively a measurement on interference - an interference effect. --Carl A Looper 07:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congragulations to Art and everybody else involved. Absolutely well done. Clear. Concise. Even handed. Intelligent. --Carl A Looper 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Things are much better now ! Could it be possible to say a bit more on the point of view of Cramer?. Indeed there is a strong unbalance between the arguments pro and against the afshar interpretation Drezet 16:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about the following:

Developed in the 1980s, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of the QM formalism is an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation, and as such it is an alternative to Bohr's principle of complementarity. The transactional interpretation seeks to exhaust the meaning of the formalism, not in otherwise mutually exclusive setups or observables, but in mutually inclusive inferences. Within the ontological ___domain of a QM experiment can be understood a classical-like path, analysable in terms of two time symmetric interfering wave functions which otherwise reproduce that path, everywhere else cancelling each other out. The time reversed component of the dual wave function has it's origin in a particle detection and can be thought of, in chronological terms, as "travelling backwards through time".

Cramer regards the Copenhagen Interpretation (which includes Bohr's principle of complementarity) as inconsistent with the QM formalism, and that the Afshar experiment is a confirmation of that. The Transactional Interpretation, on the other hand, is considered by Cramer as consistent with the Afshar experiment.

--Carl A Looper 05:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Carl, If you want to contribute to Transactional interpretation let us lead the discussion at that talk page. As big part of my investigation was on Transactional interpretation as applied to brain process (original idea by prof. Chris C. King, math dept, Uni of Auckland, New Zealand). Your summary is not correct. First, note that the birth paper of TI in 1986 never says that TI and CI are different because they violate the complementarity. The difference is that TI relies on relativistic QM (RQM), while CI on ordinary QM. Hence TI with standing waves is realised in RQM (e.g. QFT, etc.), not ordinary QM. Nevertheless, the cancelling of the waves and formation of the standin wave is [process 1]. As you may see exact solutions of the RQM equations will always preserve the original probabilities in the amplitude of the wave. So the standing wave will have amplitude of ${\displaystyle \psi \psi ^{*}}$ , which is not 1. There is second nonlinear process [process 2] that trasnforms irreversibly the state ${\displaystyle \psi \psi ^{*}\rightarrow 1}$ , hence Cramer uses the word "collapse". The standing wave formation itself is concept different from the "collapse" which is non-unitary "sudden" change of the standing wave amplitude into 1. Also this is the "early" Cramer of 1986-2003. In 2004 Cramer suddenly realized that "Bohr's principle is NOT part of TI", which well might be wrong, as objections to Afshar are now available. So this "late" Cramer, may well be wrong, which will NOT destroy the basis of the "early" work. Indeed the "late" Cramer did NOT add any equation to TI, it is just philosphy and speculation provided that Afshar's analysis is true. If Afshar's analysis collapses due to inconsistency, then this "late" Cramer will be wrong too. Danko Georgiev MD 07:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Danko. I've considerably simplified TI here in an effort to keep it as a candidate for inclusion in the paraphrasing of papers of interest to the Afshar experiment. Perhaps you might like to have a go at it. I'm not particularly attached to it. It's a first draft. Regarding complementarity, TI doesn't specifically mention BPC but BPC is an important part of the Copenhagen deliberations and is, by implication, targeted by TI. And I was careful to characterise it this way in the paraphrasing (if you re-read it). None of this changes the equations (ignoring adjustments for relativity). The Copenhagen Interpretation can be extended into the relativistic ___domain as well, although this was not done at the time. But then the debate has never really been about the equations anyway - at least not explicitly. It has always been about interpretation (philosophy). At the equation level, TI and CI are said to be equivalent (again ignoring relativity). And at the equation level the Afshar experiment is consistent with the formalism. Where the "trouble" begins is at the level of interpretation. But one can't just ignore such as "just philosophy". Without interpretation the equations can't be applied. They just fold back into pure mathematics. It is only via philosophy (which I call theory) that one can hope to specify a dividing line between physics and other disciplines (such as "philosophy") - if indeed one wants to propose that such should exist anyway. To call something "just philosophy" is to have theorised there is a difference - or otherwise appropriated that theory. But it's a particularly regressive theory (philosophy) that pretends or is otherwise ignorant of it's own philosophical origins - that positions everything else, other than itself, as "just philosophy". --Carl A Looper 00:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I might just add (as I do) that I'm not a proponent of TI but I do admire it. My paraphrase does need some work. I indicated that the dual wave functions are "mutually inclusive" but this is only in terms of their mutual interference. But a complementary aspect is still embodied in the time component of the wave functions - ie. one is reversed with respect to the other. But this is not Cramer's take on Bohr's particular discussion of complementary - Bohr is focused on setups and observables. Cramer's later support for the Afshar experiment only reveals Cramer's already articulated rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation (the CI emphasis on observables). Cramer turns our attention back to the ontological ___domain - where the state vector is imagined as operating - as does the Afshar experiment - and I still find this extremely interesting even if I can't help but see the interpretational conflict this induces. Bohr implicitly turns our attention back on this ___domain as well. What is an "interference effect" if it's not something which turns our attention back to the interference we otherwise imagine as overlaying or occupying the ontological ___domain? Certainly it could just mean anything which is an "effect" of interference but then any single particle detection, in the twin slit experiment, would be just such an "effect" and this is obviously not what Bohr means. So it can only be that which enables an "illegal" inference of interference - ie. something which a single detection does not allow. Bohr's primary emphasis remains on the predicted data but he allows that data to fold back into the ontological ___domain or to at least to overlay that ___domain - wherein we can retroject a classical path or a classical wave depending on the setup. The question is whether such retrojection necessitates that we choose mutually exclusive setups, or whether we have no choice (Bohr's position), or whether we have a choice - but depending on what choice we make the result is ... ? --Carl A Looper 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Carl you say "Afshar experiment is consistent with the formalism". No - it provides value for V^2 + D^2=1.34, which is VIOLATION of formalism. If you read my published paper, you will see that no bijection = no which way! V=1, D=0. I will not argue anymore. Afshar violates the formalism, what I have said is published, now I write follow up to Unruh's letter, both will appear in vol.3 of PP, also I have some other work under peer-review. I will not edit anything on TI, or CI, in Wikipedia. Please contact me by e-mail. p.s. link to my published articles at my user page. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Danko, my apologies for any misunderstanding. When I say the "experiment is consistent with the formalism" I only mean by such that the detectors in the Afshar experiment (which could also include the wires as photon detectors) produce the formally predicted results - ie. almost no photons are detected by the wires and all other photons are detected in the lens detectors. Now how you interpret the formalism and more specifically, BPC, determines how you will initialise V and D. The equations don't change. Afshar's initialisation of V and D is consistent (I'm arguing) with what Bohr requires even if it leads to a paradox/violation which would be very inconsistent with Bohr. In Afshar's experiment, V and D are classically initialised rather than using any quantum theoretical assumptions. And this is consistent with Bohr's articulation of BPC - that any use of the formalism requires it be initialised classically. But this is not the end of the story. I don't know what Afshar is doing to resolve the paradox but it would require novel solutions because the conventional one - BPC - doesn't work. I have my solution which I've hinted at in the above discussions and on my talk page - but the full exposition belongs to my research paper. And I believe it interoperates with your solution but I could be wrong about that. --Carl A Looper 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm back.

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, I'm back! Sorry about the absence, I've been busy. Didn't mean to make you all wait so long. Now, as I understand, Afshar made edts which have been reverted. Although he shouldn't of made the edit, I don't entirely blame him. It's frustrating when someone disappears without notice.

This whole process seems to be going nowhere, and the point-by-point system is not working. And yes, Danko is right, I do take offense at your statement. I realize you are frustrated, but excuse me for occasionally changing my mind. If I was to be so stubborn as to never change my mind on this article, then I would hardly be a decent mediator.

Now, as to the OR issue. With the "Specific Critiques" section, we are essentially saying "Some scientists disagree. For example, here is what Professor X has said about this." We are not saying "Some scientists disagree. For example, the arguments made by Professor X are completely true, undeniable, and totally disprove Professor Afshar." We are only stating two things as fact in the "Specific Critiques" section. We are stating that some scientists (specific scientists, not just 'some scientists') disagree, and that they have made the following arguments. We are not stating that those arguments are correct, peer-reviewed, or that they prove Afshar wrong. We are only stating that these people have made these arguments against Professor Afshar's interpretation. It brings to mind the legal disclaimer one hears so often: "The viewpoints contained herein are the views of the individuals that expressed them, and do not necessarily represent the views of FOX Networks or its employees."

In terms of reliability of sources, we do not need to show that the "Specific Critiques" are correct. We only need to show that those statements and ideas really were expressed by the same people we cite. It doesn't matter if the places Bill Unruh or any of the other people made their remarks or published their articles were peer-reviewed. It only matters if we can verify that yes, Bill Unruh really did say/publish that, and not someone using his name.

Note that this only applies to the "Specific Critiques" section.

I will be here as often as I can, however, I may not be online every day. Please, bear with me and play nice while I'm gone. If you feel that I might not see a specific comment on the talk page, please, leave me a message on my talk page.

One last thing: Please, do not post comments on this discussion page saying "Mediator, do this." "Mediator, I'm obviously right. Enact my suggestion now!" It annoys me, and it makes me no more likely to do what you want. This kind of comment assumes that I will automatically side with whoever wrote it, ignore the ongoing debate and any other viewpoints and do whatever you want. It is like standing up in the middle of a trial and telling the jury "This has gone long enough. Please, end the trial and rule in my favor now." I am not naming names, although it seems almost everyone has made some number of these comments. Again, if you want to make sure I get a message, post it on my talk page. Sdirrim 04:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Afshar violations of General Relativity

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I will not comment on the results of Afshar's attack on my work, and the journal where it is published - they are obvious, I have deleted personally everything that connects my work and this article. However I want to give the following information to all participants of this discussion, because I think they must always look for the truth without emotions. So Afshar stated:

"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 here I provide quotation from Afshar's 1998 work, where Afshar URGENTLY insists on paradigm shift that will violate general relativity!

"A novel method of derivation of Mass/Inertia is advanced and its application to Dark Matter dynamics is discussed. It is proved that gravitational mass of any particle is not constant at all distances and that the Machian approach to inertia as that employed in Einstein's General Relativity is incorrect. ... The MACHO team's failure to find the baryoinc candidates to dark matter enforces the urgency of this paradigm shift."

Well, Afshar so far did the following verifiable statements

• [i] the Nobel prize of Enstein for the photoelectric effect should be taken back [New Scientist],
• [ii] the idea of photon is dead [New Scientist],
• [iii] Bohr's complementarity is wrong [Found. Phys.],
• [iv] General relativity is wrong and urgently one should take the novel Afshar theory of mass/inertia Afshar, 1998.

Afshar, please tell us What comes next? p.s. As I have seen Afshar has Wiki-entry I think to update the article of Afshar and add section "Research and novel achievements" where I intend to list the points [i]-[iv]. Afshar, will you support my edit? BTW you fully deserve to have Wikientry, where one will have the opportunity to get accustomed to ALL your novel ideas, that the Afshar experiment article presently did not cover. Danko Georgiev MD 06:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Violations of existing theorys can differ in important ways. In particular, there are:

1. violations which can occur as a result of reading the original theory "incorrectly" - ie. reading it in a novel way (consciously or otherwise).

2. violations which can occur despite a "correct" reading of the original theory.

In the first case a novel theory is substituted for the original theory - it is incorrectly placed under the name of the original theory. This is an a priori violation which may in fact lead to no existant problems at all - due to faults in the original theory - which have been inadvertently solved in the substitution. In the second case a novel theory is not substituted, but required since the original theory has identifiable faults. The first kind of violation is unacceptable since it introduces a novel theory via the back door (even if it solves any problems with the original theory). It violates the existing theory in an historically ignorant manner. The second type of violation is "acceptable" since it is not, a priori, a function of misreading the original theory. Type two violations demand the introduction of a novel theory (through the front door), and these "front door" novel theorys should always be encouraged. --Carl A Looper 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Carl, when it comes for Afshar to judge the quality of "Progress in Physics" the journal where I have disproved his utter nonsense, it is claimed by Afshar to be "disreputable" because published theories that promote anti-relativistic viewpoints. However when it comes to judge the Afshar's competence in physics, promotion of anti-relativistic viewpoints is something deserving encouragement ??? ??? ??? Danko Georgiev MD 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although I'm encouraging novel theorys, I'm not suggesting they may be any good - they would still need to be assessed. But if there are problems with an existing theory then whatever the ongoing candidates for a solution might be, they would have to be novel ie. new, different from, or "anti" the original theory. What else could they be - the same as the original theory? Regarding the right journal's to publish - I wouldn't worry about that - Afshar is pulling your chain. And you are taking the bait. You can publish wherever you like. It would be good to publish in the right journals though - wouldn't it - eh? --Carl A Looper 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I personally like to submit to mathematically oriented journals. I don't know what means to publish in the "right journals"? I am not Afshar, so I do not want to put my stamp on journals and say which is reputable and which is disreputable. Danko Georgiev MD 08:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Danko. Yes, the "right journal" depends on a lot of interacting criteria and one man's "right journal" is another man's "disreputable source". When I was making films in my youth, I always dreamed of having my work screened ("published") in a big cinema on 35mm film, in widescreen format. I eventually achieved this aim - a short computer animated film, released in Australia, and screening with the feature film, "Scanner Darkly". It was a big deal for me. It was the "right journal". But my early Super 8 films, screened in the local pub, remain just as relevant and important (and many remain more so). --Carl A Looper 22:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Popper's experiment

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

People involved in the discussion here might be interested to know that there now exists a wiki entry on Popper's experiment.

Thanks Tabish. Enjoyed the article very much. Will discuss further there. --Carl A Looper 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Which-Way problem solved

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

As far as I understand, critics claim this experiment does not give details about which pinhole the photon went through and therefor does not give which-way information, thus the experiment is false.

Couldn't electrons be used instead of photons, this way one separate electron can be fired at a time, hitting only one detector (giving which-way information). When repeated a million time, we could see that the 'grid' has had no effect and thereby proving that the electron has also acted as a wave.

I believe this setup would be superior to Afshar's idea, yet I could not think of a proper replacement for the lens which would need to defract the electron to the detectors.

Could any real physicists comment on my idea.

Thank you,

LAUBO 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Having no which-way information in this experiment has nothing to do with the particles being photons or electrons. You will ALWAYS get only a single click. However, the question is whether a particular detector clicking, in the case of both the slits being open, gives one information about which slit the particle passed through? Because closing one slit leads to only one particular detector clicking, one tends to erroneously associate each detector with a respective slit, even when both the slits are open. A careful analysis will show you that the answer is no. A simple way to see it is the following. Firstly, in quantum mechanics, particles obey schrodinger eqn, hence there is a wave-function associated with them, which makes even electrons behave like waves. Now if the interference is there, all the particles are coming from the bright fringes (dark fringes transmit no particles, by definition). Experimentally afshar blocks the dark fringes, so even experimentally we are sure that particles do not pass through the dark fringes. Bright fringes are formed by equal contribution from both the slits (what we call constructive interference in classical wave optics). Once the contributions from the two slits are added up, the which-way information is lost for good! However, the wave-function of the particle at the bright fringes is such that the particle has equal probability of going to either of the two detectors. But now the which-way information is not there, and the detector click doesn't tell us which-slit the particle came from.
This argument is exactly equivalent to the one which Unruh gives in his different thought experiment with mirrors in an interferometer.
--Tabish q 19:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tabish, PLEASE do not misinterprete Unruh, and do NOT speak about Georgiev's argument applied to Unruh's setup. Indeed in my analysis is where I show there is no which way, Unruh does not show it. Ubruh believes there is which way information and interference at the same time! Please read carefully, before you post. P.S. In my recent paper I made 1-to-1 mapping with your waves for Afshar's setup. Simply I have expanded the canceled sinh terms in the form of exponential functions, then simplify the algebra, so I have recovered 8 waves. Then I map the 8 waves (4 cosh waves and 4 sinh waves) from your calculation with the 8 waves in Georgiev's description of Unruh's setup. PLEASE note that the setup decribed by me, is composed of two Mach-Zehnder interferometers, so basicly I even obtain exactly the opposite "clicking" of detectors (compared to Unruh's original description) when one puts obstacles on interferometer paths. So Unruh is completely wrong on everything, except the fact that the so-called by me "Unruh's setup" is equivalent to Afshar's setup. My recent work is the first clear 1-to-1 mapping, and will appear online soon. Best, Danko Georgiev MD 07:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see this experiment still has a lot of controversy around it. Thank you both for your help anyway. I can't wait to become more educated in physics so that I could understand atleast a small part of this all. LAUBO 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear LAUBO, it is enough if you understand mathematics to understand the correct description of the experiment and why there is no which way information even if there is no grid or obstacles on photon paths. Unfortunately, most of wiki-editors involved here and are "slaves" of authority and are "afraid" to think with their own head. Also, strikingly Art Carlson, possibly tried to understand Unruh's setup, then reached the correct conclusion that I have published, and mis-attributed it to Unruh. (Carlson and Tabish, should be careful when they speak about Unruh's work, and also better be acquainted with my work, because I personally don't like attributing my analysis to Unruh.) A nice introduction and full explanation of what is going on with 8 interfering waves is given in my published work Georgiev (2007) PP vol.2: 97-103. All issues of Progress In Physics here. Unruh's reply Unruh (2007) PP vol.3: 39 unfortunately contains many errors, but at least says clearly that there is both interference and which way information - I hope this is good information for Art and Tabish!!! My reply [comming soon]. Danko Georgiev MD 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Danko, unfortunately, you are reading between the lines that Unruh wrote. Let me first quote Unruh in his comment on your paper,

However, he then implies that I hold certain positions about the interpretation of the experiment, interpretations which I neither hold nor are contained in my description.

Unruh does NOT say that there is interference and which-way information at the same time. What he says amounts to the following. Without blocking the dark fringe path (or in Afshar's experiment, without putting the wire grid), you cannot say that there is interference. Interference is not an abstract thing, it is a measured property. If you do not block the dark fringe, you CANNOT claim that it is dark, and that there are no photons passing through. So, you cannot invoke any argument of which-way information getting lost. So, in this case, there is which-way information, but there is no interference. (remember, this is Unruh's view I am talking about, not mine)
If you do block the dark fringe (introduce the wire-grid in Afshar's experiment), you are in effect recording interference. But once you have blocked the dark fringe, Unruh argues, you can no longer claim that there is which-way information. Which-way information is lost. So, in this case there IS interference, but there is NO which-way information. So you see, nowhere does Unruh claim that there is which-way information and interference at the same time.
Now let me explain where I disagree with Unruh. Unruh asserts that IF you do NOT block the dark fringe, you do not KNOW that it is dark. And hence you cannot assume that photons do not pass through that region. I believe that if you have blocked a path and checked that no photons come that way, and that it is really dark, even after removing the block, you should be able to say that the path is still dark. This is just common logic: if you have checked by putting a block that no photons go a particular way, why should photons suddenly start going that way, just because you have removed the block? This is the ONLY essential difference between Unruh's and my view. --Tabish q 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tabish, I have personal correspondantion with Unruh since 2004, and I know word-by-word ALL his published sources. Unruh SAYS there is interference, and which way, but ONLY measuring the interference destroys the which way information. I have explicitly formulated elsewhere in my work - KNOWLEDGE of interference ITSELF erases the which way information. And the knowledge is equivalent with the MATHEMATICAL description of the setup. If you that there is interefence you don't need to measure it. Unruh is wrong, you misattribute words to Unruh that he never said. Please be sure you are well acquainted with Unruh's claims before you speak on his behalf. p.s. LET US TALK ON UNRUH'S INTERFEROMETER TALK PAGE or by e-mail.Danko Georgiev MD 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Direct disproof of Tabish's thesis on what Unruh says is this passage:

"The [coherent] system is arranged so that the interference at the second half silvered mirror is such that now all of the photons go on path 3. path 4, like the dark fringes in Afshar's setup, contains no photons. These will fall on detectors 5 and 6. Furthermore, one can still argue that any photon which fell on detector 5 came from path 1 and those on 6 came from 2." Unruh in rebel, 2004

Unruh knows that there are no photons EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT MEASURED, and says there is which way information. Dear Tabish, please be sure that I am very strict in everything, and I never lie or get misleaded in what others say! I am correct what Unruh says, you are misleaded. I do not want to be enemy of yours, simply Unruh is saying wrong things, and he is the one "in the opposite camp". The provided by you quotation of Unruh accusing me of misrepresentation is misleading, and I have rebutted him completely - expect soon the PP article of mine. Danko Georgiev MD 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Danko, this is too fine a point to get into an argument about. What I have said has also been cross-checked by personal communication with Unruh. Please keep cool, and realize what the difference is between yours and Unruh's point of view. You say, "the knowledge is equivalent with the MATHEMATICAL description of the setup". However, Unruh, like many others, believes that there cannot be any knowledge without measuring. Throughout his article, he has only talked of measuring interference and measuring which-way information. However, I believe that mathematically, existence of which-way information is incompatible with the existence of interference (this is what I have shown in my work). But if I say that Unruh is claiming the opposite, then I am putting words in his mouth. He only talks about measuring, and drawing conclusions from measurements. --Tabish q 07:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Experiment Details

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

I would like to ask some details about this experiment. I need it for my own use, but I also believe it is essential for an encyclopedia to have this data.

• What are the precise dimension of the experiment? - lens at 4.2 m after the slits, image at 5.58 m after the slits.
• How big are the pinholes? - 0.25 mm
• How far appart are they from eachother? - 2 mm
• How big is the grid, lines and spaces between? - you can calculate the interference pattern by yourself at 4.2 m after the slit, take the photon wavelength of 650 nm.
• What type of lens? - doesn't matter
• What type of detector? - doesn't matter

Thank you, LAUBO 09:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Answered directly by me, Danko Georgiev MD 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you need this information, why don't you read Afshar's article? --Art Carlson 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much Danko! Art, I was not able to find the article.

In the second paragraph of the introduction, "a peer-reviewed article appeared in Foundations of Physics" is footnoted (note 1 of the references). Clicking on that link leads you to arXiv, where you can download a pdf version. Where did you run into trouble? --Art Carlson 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am unfamiliar with ArXiv and did not notice the link to the PDF. Thank you very much, this is a big help for me.

this paper is the original one, from where I have taken the details of the lens setup reported in New Scientist. Danko Georgiev MD 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Afshar's weblog
2. Afshar's FAQ