Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afshar experiment

edit

Delete. This is article is self-promotion and should be considered as advertisement. The discussed interpretation of the experiment is not published in peer-reviewed journal, and may confuse occasional readers of Wikipedia, instead of supplying them with trustful information. Danko Georgiev MD 13:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I fully agree with A. Drezet and the putative situation when your own child has read Wikipedia to search some math or science. If Wikipedia keeps article's like Afshar's then what you have to tell your child - "please ignore what you have read, Wikipedia is not encyclopedia, but web forum where everyone can publish whatever he wants if he is enough clever like Afshar to create some sock-puppets" [see Physicsmonk entry below].Danko Georgiev MD 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Afshar has contributed to the article, but someone else created it. Is there any other reason you'd call it "self-promotion"?Bjones 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I have stated many times before, my involvement has been limited to ensuring accuracy of the content, with much repair that still remains to be done on the page. A pee-reviewed publication is upcoming, although there have been other reputable professional publications as well. The fact that the work is NOTABLE according to Wiki standards is beyond question... It is a sad day for Wikipedia when a spiteful non-entity with no understanding of physics (e.g. see [1]) can ask for deletion of an experiment that's the center of much current debate in the academia. Danko Georgieve's complete lack of knowledge on the subject matter is known (and has been publicly stated) by many physicists including Unruh, Drezet, Kastner, Motl, and some wikipedians who've had the chance to engage him in conversation. Many experts who would wish to keep this article are not Wikipedians and are too busy to get into arguments with somebody who's not "even wrong." If such individuals as the nominator of this 2nd deletion request are to constantly interfere and destabilize the article, then I may join the ranks of Wiki critics who have little if any faith in its reliability. Prof. Afshar 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Afshar, personal attacks cannot establish the truthness of your work. There is nothing violating Wikipedia politics for nominating an article for second time to be deleted. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 04:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Nominating an article for deletion one month after its previous nomination concluded with an overwelming consensus to keep the article without giving any new facts is not going to achieve something. It does not help to build the encyclopaedia. Hence it is against policy.
Incidentally, I do agree that Prof. Afshar would be well advised to moderate his tone. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no personal attacks on Georgieve who has been fully rebuffed by other physicists as well as myself in my weblog and elsewhere. Pointing out the facts is not an attack, it is a simple "heads up" for those who do not know this person's motives. As Prof. Hewitt said, this 2nd deletion nomination is an abuse of Wiki procedures. Prof. Afshar 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to have BIG DIFFERENCE with the last time. Now it seems that the number of DELETE votes has increased. If the work of Afshar was true it would have tendency to corroborate in time, yet this does not happen. The page is almost fully serving the purpose of Afshar AS IS NOW, so it must start with a lot of other basic principles on complementarity. By the way, my entry on complementarity was VANDALIZED by Afshar, and this is evidence that he and his friends control all relevant pages that have something to do with complementarity. THIS IS VIOLATION OF WIKI politics, VANDALISM is not acceptable, and IF Afshar wants to delete an entry he must at least suggest it for voting before deletion. Danko Georgiev MD 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is self promotion and since this self promotion is not justified for the moment I propose to remove the page until more rigorous discussions will be done (far away from Danko Georgiev pseu do-science naturally) Aurelien Drezet Drezet(physicist vocifering a bit) 20 january 2006

  • Comment Dear Aureline, this experiment has put an abrupt end to 8 decades of bullying by the orthodoxy, and sadly for your side, the cat is out of the bag and there is no going back. I wonder what other means of stifling dissent you guys would come up with when the paper gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. As for the technical rebuttal, (although this is hardly the place for it) I have responded to your criticisms without receiving a response. As I have asked before, one simple question: what process other than interference can account for the lack of flux on the wires? Please respond using QM formalism. Prof. Afshar 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Afshar, there is NO WHICH WAY information in your experiment and the photon is holographically at both detectors. And YES, in order to have holographic image YOU NEED INTERFERENCE, but there is NO WHICH WAY info. See the recent posts of my 4 slit experiment with two different density matrices, and see also the CARL LOOPER's entry suggesting a holographic experiment with "virtual pinhole". Yes, I agree that Aurelien et al., suggest wrong physics and no interference, but others (including me) have explained your experiment with rigorous math and with holography [no which way]. Once you see that this is the loophole in your interpretation, you will be glad that actually you have not yet published the article. The difference between me and you will be that I have withdrawn a preprint [at ArXiv] but I have NEVER withdrawn peer-reviewed paper(!), while you will have withdraw a published one. I am almost sure that you will find some low quality journal without impact factor, and you will publish your work, but my friendly advise is "Do NOT do that", you will score an auto-goal. Danko Georgiev MD 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To Afshar: The problem here is not if my argumentation (or one other ) is good or not (but of course my argumentation is the correct one :)). The problem concern the objectivity of the WP concerning your work. This page doesnt fulfill the basic rule of a scientific : don't amalgamate the agreement of the large public with the one of professional. for this reason and many others this page should desapear from WP. Concerning my objection it is not the place here and I said already what I think about Afsahre work's several times: i will nor repeat again Aurelien Drezet January
  • Comment Danko, here's what a fellow-Wikipedian says about you: "its clear that he [Danko Georgiev] not only doesn't know QM, but he doesn't even understand basic undergraduate analysis." Please do not force me to put out the other unflattering remarks from the physicists who have had the misfortune of interacting with you. I do not enjoy doing this, but for the interest of historic record, I will not hesitate to reveal to newcomers the various kinds of opposition I am facing. Enough said! P.S. When did I ever withdraw a publication, name and date please?! Prof. Afshar 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have grave concerns that the strong personalities at play in this AfD discussion will endanger the article's NPOV (without a substantial base of qualified experts to balance it out, as might be the case in other controversial articles), and much of the article seems unencyclopedic. If kept, the article should be about the controversy, not the theory. Wikipedia is most certainly not the place to debate or communicate professional physics--it is about physics education. If kept, the article should be re-written to reflect that. --Hansnesse 10:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every controversial new result produces visceral reactions, involving "strong personalities." Controversy in itself does not qualify an article for deletion according to Wiki rules. That said, however, we may have an amicable solution at hand. I would like to act upon a suggestion made by Prof. Hewitt elsewhere: I will write a version of the page that I believe accurately reflects the facts of the experiment, its implication, a brief discussion of the controversy with references, and post it on my Userpage. Other experts will then be invited to edit and correct the text to ensure its objectivity. Upon consensus on the quality of the material, one of the experts will replace the current article with the "good" version. Of course, as new information (pro/con) becomes available the page can be updated in a similar fashion. Would this offer change your opinion on the article? -- Prof. Afshar 10:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Quotation: "I will write a version of the page that I believe accurately reflects the facts of the experiment, its implication, a brief discussion of the controversy with references, and post it on my Userpage." (Afshar)'
    • Comment I would like to propose a friendly amendment to Prof. Afshar's offer above:
The new version that is constructed as a subpage of the user talk page of User:Asher would first be moved to Talk:Afshar experiment for discussion instead of immediately replacing Afshar experiment.
The reason is that some Wikipedia editors might feel that Prof. Afshar has an unfair advantage contributing to the version on the subpage of his user talk page because of the special rules that apply there.
Regards, -- Carl Hewitt 09:18 21 January 2006 (PST)
Also I suggest that you do a whole article on the subpage of your user talk page. That way there won't be integration problems later. You can incorporate whatever is of value from the current article. --Carl Hewitt 13:40 21 January 2006 (PST)

Dear mr. Afshar, you may write new QM textbook if you want. You at various places say that your EPIC article is the TRIUMPH of the last 70-80 years of QM experiments, and this is nothing but parody and unrespect to science. Are you seriously expecting a Nobel Prize, you once said that Einstein's Nobel prize should be taken back BECAUSE OF YOUR EXPERIMENT??? To all others - why you still haven't voted for deletion of this non-sense entry? Danko Georgiev MD 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Danko, I will not engage in a conversation with you, as you have severly failed all the necessary criteria in my book. I fully understand your current bid for deletion of this page is your reaction to the lack of interest in your baseless arguments by every physicist that wasted his/her time listening to you. As to the "epic" nature of my work, only time can tell. For now real analysis and debate is needed, not juvenile antics. As for Einstein's Nobel prize, you have misquoted me. I said: "In order to declare Einstein the winner of the Bohr-Einstein debate, we would have to take back his Nobel prize." Of course all physicists believe that Einstein should have won his Nobel for Relativity Theories, and I personally revere Einstein. BUT, Einstein was awarded his Nobel prize for the concept of photons (thinking of them like "rain drops" with definite trajectories.) That idea of the photon (with bullet-like trajectories) is certainly wrong as my experiment clearly shows. The above statement was made to signify the seriousness of the problem the experiment attempts to address, and should not be taken out of its context. It took me 18 years of focused research and hard work to come up with this seemingly simple experiment, and I will not allow an inept person like you to halt its discussion. I repeat my advice (which is the advice of all other experts previously given to you): learn the basics and then talk about the bigger issue. It is an absolute embarrassment to say that the image is a hologram... Do not further harm your reputation, and good luck with your studies in Pharmacology. -- Prof. Afshar 17:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Afshar, recently Carl Looper has added identical argument with holographic pinhole, and possibly he is physicist working on holography, because he agreed with my argument at 100% percent. It is NOT an absolute embarrassment to say that the image is a hologram and this is where math loophole is. Sorry for you that for 18 years of study you cannot write down one simple density matrix. Although I am not great math expert, I have done this already in 2004. Danko Georgiev MD 05:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete as no verifiable third-party references. Stifle 00:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Very weak keep. The main problem with Mr. Afshar's references is that all but one are to subscription-only websites. I still make no assertion that the content is encyclopedic, but I will accept the opinions of the more knowledgeable folks here. Stifle 11:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what counts as a "verifiable third-party reference", but the article lists one paper by Afshar published in conference proceedings, available online, and one reference to an article written by somebody else in a popular-scientific magazine (New Scientist) which generated some discussion in the Letters section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It made the cover of New Scientist magazine, if I remember correctly, and, since this is a rather popular, widely read magazine, it ended up causing quite a stir; it is for this reason that the article is "notable". As to publication in a refereed journal, Prof. Afshar does have a preprint that has been submitted for publication. I saw it; while it describes the experiment closely, it was mostly free of the contentious claims and statements that caused the controversy. linas 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What?!!! See my web-page for "verifiable third party references": New Scientist Cover Story, NPR Science Friday, The Independent, Einstein Centennial Lecture, AIP Conf. Proc., SPIE, Perimeter Institute, University lectures, numerous magazines and a couple of books etc. Please check the facts before you make erroneous statements. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 05:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • YELLOW PRESS is not counted as trustful source for encyclopedic entry. Before 10 or so years there was bold announcement of COLD-FUSION, that later was proved to be CON-FUSION. I suppose that after several months when everybody disproves your work, you will quietly delete everything from the irims server, AS IF it never happened. But yes, the time will tell ...Danko Georgiev MD 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment dear Linas, all the periodicals presented by Afshar are only 1)popular press or 2) conferences. In both cases this is not sufficient to find the agreement of science communauty. A .Drezet (23/01/06)
  • Clearly, there is no agreement in the science community that Afshar's experiment refutes quantum mechanics. I'd even say that there is a consensus that Afshar's interpretation of the results is wrong (at least, the physicists in my department are not panicking). However, there are some things that people agree on: that Afstar did an experiment, the setting and the results of this experiment, that Afshar claims it refutes the current theory of QM, and that this claim generated some interest in the popular press. It is obvious to me that this yields enough material for a Wikipedia article. I'm sure the article can be improved but I see no reason to delete it. Since you seem to be new here, it might be a good idea to read our deletion policy to get a feeling for when we do delete articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Jiste, I have never claimed that my experiment refutes QM. My claim concerns Bohr's principle of Complementarity which seems to have failed in the experiment. Please take a look at my preprint www.irims.org/quant-ph/030503/, and Proc. SPIE 5866 (2005) 229-244.-- Prof. Afshar 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A third-party reference is one outside the control of Mr. Afshar. This article does not provide any. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If and when some other person writes a book/paper on the Afshar experiment, then it is no longer original research.
      I maintain that this is material for a user page, and not article namespace. Stifle 14:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a serious answer it is clearly says Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought so why this page is here. secondly it doesnt matter if yes or not this experiment has been presented in popular journals: the topic is so controversial that there is even not a article of afshar availaible in a per reviewed. Perhaps the best choice will to create a WP section for controversial idea (perhaps it exists i dont know). However if one of your student comes on WP and collects the information on the Afshar experiment would you say that he or she learned science ? I will be please to know your point of view. Aurelien Drezet (23/01/06). (PS: this comment is not for Stifle since I agree completely with him).
  • Comment Dear Aureline, on 07/31/05 @ 08:23 in my weblog you said "I would like to say to DG [Danko Georgiev] that an article of conference is certainly an important point even if a PRL is much better. Even if I desagree with S. Afshar on his interpretation your argumentation is meaning less since very important thing can be found in proceedings." You seem to have changed your opinion! I would appreciate if you kindly acknowledge the fact that you consider Danko to be totally wrong. In the same post you had said: "You [Afshar] are right that he [Danko Gerogiev] is 100% wrong on his interpretation of QM, electromagentism and even optics." I expect higher consistency from Prof. Zeilinger's ex-student. P.S. It would be nice if you could set up your Wiki account, I believe your vote may be ignored otherwise.-- Prof. Afshar 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and delete again dear Afshar 1) it doesnt matter if my vote is not considered as official or not. 2) DG is indeed ignorant in physics but it is not my fault if we have a common point : we believe both that your result is wrongly analyzed. 3) I was never a student of Zeilinger even if I learned a lot working in his group as a post doc. 4) On my 3 remarks only 1) is connected to the present suject which is: Do you have the right to create a WP page on your research which are still so controversial. I know that I speak to the wind because you will never listen however ethics are good things for a scientist. Aurelien Drezet (23/1/06)
  • Dear Stifle, The New Scientist article was NOT written by me. Nor the Analogue, nor the OE, nor the Independent, nor..., nor the book Schrodinger's Rabbits. They are all 3rd-party ref.s according to your view then aren't they? If not, why? Are you saying I wrote those?!!-- Prof. Afshar 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dear Time Cubel, you obviously do not understand what means scientific publication. Maybe for you publications in New York times, or any other magazine should be included in Wikipedia, as well? What you think?? Danko Georgiev MD 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The policy on verifiability can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability and, at least in my reading of it, does not extend to requiring publication in a peer-reviewed journal prior to coverage in Wikipedia. So indeed, scientific publication is not the standard for verifiability. I think, however, it is fair to limit discussion in the article to the parts which have been published; that is, as an account intended for a popular audience (if it is to be kept). --Hansnesse 05:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Hans, I agree that not all topics covered in Wikipedia need scientific publication before coverage. Examples are literature, movies, e-games, some popular topics. But when it comes to mathematics and science you cannot publish yellow press. Afshar is offending Einstein, takes back with easy hand Nobel Prizes as IF he is in the Nobel Cometee, and possibly himself expects a Nobel Prize for his parody of science. Everyone who understand matrix algebra and what is called density matrix of quantum state will immediately SEE that in order to have violation of complementarity you need to have 2 different density matrices in the same time! This is absurd, and as I suggested Afshar may write down new QM textbook if he wants, but it will be science fiction, not science. Danko Georgiev MD 07:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a comment? what is the argumentation? Aurelien Drezet 23/01/06

WARNING SOCK PUPPET !!! - Physicsmonk is SOCKPUPPET!!! The admins should detect the I.P. and prove this abusive usage. Already linas has shown clearly the sockpuppetry. Afshar has the nice habit to use SOCKPUPPETS and he must be punished for this see [[2]]. Please ignore this voting - Physicsmonk has no other useful Wikipedia entries except voting against Afshar's entry deletion!!! I think that this time Afshar has done a big ERR. If I was a crackpot I also could create a dozen of sockpuppets and vote against, but I am not such an idiot. Danko Georgiev MD 14:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In fully reading this article I found nothing to be confusing. There is even frequent mention of the fact that it is an on-going debate, with references of submission to two journals of which I have heard (and are of quite some merit). As much as QM is done via thought process, it is frequently seen that results from experiments can take sometimes in the ballpark of 2 years before they are fully reviewed by peers. Das Nerd 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The debate will not continue because people will forget the result soon (this is my point of view at least). However wait two years and then come back and write again the

WP pages concerning Afshar's works. for the moment we should delete that... Aurelien Drezet 23/01/06 PS: the sockpuppets story is indeed comical linas will have probably some fun (or he will explose soon ) when he will see that the puppet master is back:) conclusion delete again.

  • Keep (changement of last minute after meditation in the lonelyness of a tibetan monastry After a discussion with linas he convinced me that the best thing to do is not to destroy the page but to fix it in a good norm and a good standard. The work of afshar is controversial and i dont subscribe to his interpretation. however the experiment exists and it is not the first time thata physicist present somehing of controversial concerning complementarity (remenber the experiment of dipankar Home for example). I proposed now to prof. afshar to write down a theoretical section to replace the present one (he seems to accept). This new section should says at the beginnig this is the interpretation of afshar. The rest will stay objective since the introduction is already fine and the list of reference is I guess correct. I will add a link to the page concerning complementarity which needs to be modify too. Concerning the work of DG I have no idea what to do with thaT since the physics is too badly presented to give even a unity or a impression (perhaps there is something behind but i dont know what). If he wants he can let a link to his work on my user page (talk) i will tra to read it and give honestly my impression. I will work on this topic at the beginning of february not before because i have too many things to finish right now . regards to all Drezet (24/1/06)
  • Dear Aurelien, I applaud your objectivity. And many thanks to Linas for his patience and cooperation. Either Linas or Aureline, can you kindly cross out the initial delete vote from the list to snsure it is not counted as such? Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 16:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: my name is Aurelien not Aureline Drezet (24/1/06)

  • Delete. This is a very difficult situation. All other things being equal, I think the experiment is well enough known to merit a page. However Afshar's behavior on Wikipedia has been absolutely despicable. Regardless of the merits of his work, his actions have been those of a crackpot. As long as he remains on Wikipedia, the article will never be reliable as a source of information, and so I can't see the point of retaining it. I don't think it's fair to the readers of Wikipedia to continue to serve this article as though it were the result of a cooperative community process. -- BenRG 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it stands, the bulk of the article has been written by others, not me. So I don't see your point regarding the article not being a "community process." There are errors precisely because I was not allowed to clarify the motivation behind the experiment and the main line of logic. As discussed above, I have agreed to work with the credible Wiki editors who have a solid physics/mathematics background like Prof. Carl Hewitt, Jitse Niesen, Linas, Drezet and others to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the article. You are welcome to join us in that effort. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Afshar_experiment_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137543686"