Talk:Afshar experiment

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.

Disputed Segments (Revised)

Here is the section for disputed pieces of text in the original article. This is a numbered list of text pieces, discussion for these pieces goes into the appropriate section. If there is no preexisting discussion section for that piece of text, start a new one. Items on this list will have strikethroughs (text) after they have been dealt with. Sdirrim 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "The Afshar experiment is an optical experiment,"

   addressed 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

2. "The statistical demonstration of interference in Afshar's experiment, as in the double slit experiment, does not rule out the interference of individual photons."

   Brought up by Danko Georgiev MD 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

   addressed 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
   

3. Niels Bohr stated "an adequate tool for a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[11]
   • If the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), how can Bohr's principle of complementarity be violated by the experiment?[13][14][15]
     Brought up by Carl A Looper 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

1. All of == Specific Critiques == following "There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons.

   Brought up by Prof. Afshar 05:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

2. "Afshar's experiment does not yield which way information and demonstrate interference effects for any individual particle (the photon), any more than the classic double slit experiment does, since we already know the photon propagates according to a wave-equation between the slits and any screen (i.e. behaves like a wave until it hits the screen, whereupon is observed as a particle.) The claim of complementarity violation in Afshar's experiment is a statistical argument that applies only to large numbers photons, not to individuals (cf "the particle" above in Bohr's statement is a reference to a single photon, not to groups of photons).

   "To conclude, in spite of Afshar's claim we still need two experiments in order to exploit the totality of the phenomenon. As pointed out originally by Bohr, we can not use information associated with a same photon event to rebuild in a statistical way (i.e. by an accumulation of such events) the two complementary distributions of photons in the image plane and in the interference plane. The hypothesis of Afshar that we only need some partial information concerning the interference pattern in order to reconstruct the complete interference is only based on the idea that the fringes already exist. The whole reasoning is circular and for this reason misleading." - Aurelien Drezet

   Brought up by Sdirrim 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Niels Bohr stated "an adequate tool for a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[11]

   If the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), how can Bohr's principle of complementarity be violated by the experiment?[13][14][15]

   Brought up by Carl A Looper 04:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Piece #1

"The Afshar experiment is an optical experiment,". What is the problem, and what are the proposed change(s), and why? Remember, discuss only the disputed text, not each other's credentials/knowledge. Sdirrim 16:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with this. The Afshar Experiment is an optical experiment. Dndn1011 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, I just wanted to test the mediation process. As you can see Danko has lived up to his ill-reputation once again. Hopefully we can contain Danko's misbehavior and continue the mediation. I will shortly post the next segment I'd like to discuss. Regards. -- Prof. Afshar 15:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not help to keep attacking Danko. --Ideogram 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ideogram, please refrain from attacks ad hominem. Also, it appears that there are no desired changes to Disputed Piece #1, so I will leave it as is and consider discussion on it closed, unless someone objects. Sdirrim 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed recent editing and old revert, piece #2

Dear Sdirrim, I think the article should be reverted to my last edit. The current version contains misstatement of Afshar's experiment, and I cannot trace who has written this paragraph which is wrong, and is personal opinion of what Afdshar says, not what Afshar said.

"Afshar's conclusion is that the light exhibits a wave-like behavior when going through the wires, since the light goes through the spaces between the wires when both slits were open, but also exhibits a particle-like behavior after going through the lens, with photons going to a given photo-detector. "

Afshar claimed that there is one-to-one correspondence, and in none of the papers he discusses what happens when the photon passes through the lens, nor has stated that the "passage trough the lens" is the particle-like aspect.

Please revert to my last edit of the article.

"Afshar's conclusion is that the light exhibits both complementary wave and particle characteristics in the same experiment for the same photons: a wave-like behavior when photon goes through the wires, since the light goes through the spaces between the wires when both slits were open, but also exhibits a particle-like behavior preserving the which way correspondence between the slit through which the photon have passed and the detector that measures the photon. "

I want to warn that interpreting of what Afshar would have said, thinks now, etc., is classified as OR, and is not verifiable. My proposal is based solely on the 4 verifiable papers that Afshar has released, it says no more no less than what Afshar has officially published. p.s. I hope Afshar personally supports this change, because I think there is no use to oppose to everything I say, I can post quotation of Afshar's post, where he EXPLICITLY said that the particle aspect is based on the idea of one-to-one correspondence (bijection)! p.s. 2 In order to explain why my revision is mathematically necessary for nonexperts, I want to add that the current text says the photon "goes to given detector", but the correct statement is "to given detector ONLY" and this "only" is what matters, this is the essense of the word bijection Danko Georgiev MD 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Danko's assessment above.-- Prof. Afshar 04:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then put it as a disputed piece of text in the "Disputed Segments (Revised)" section. I reverted the article to that specific section because it was the current version when we decided to make no unilateral changes. Changes were made after that decision, and I reverted the changes made after the revision. If you have an idea for a change to the article, put it under the appropriate talk page section. Put the questionable text under the "Disputed Segments (Revised)" section, and create a new section to discuss changes to the disputed segment. This seems like a good system, and if everyone can refrain from editing, and instead allow me to make only the agreed-upon changes as decided under this system, than I believe we can get this worked out. Thank you all for being civil, and try this system for the next few days. Please read my comments at the bottom of the page, and I hope everone can remain civil. Hopefully, when I get back, there will be a nice, neat set of edits for me to make that I can see have been agreed upon. See everyone Monday! Sdirrim 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• And please, everyone, don't screw this up. If any changes are made that are not agreed upon, I would trust someone to revert it to the current version. If this degenerates into meaningless chaos before I get back, I will have to request a lock on the article and formal arbitration. Please, make this work. Thanks! Sdirrim 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I note that Danko is personally connected to this subject. I urge Danko (as well as Afshar) to refrain from editing this article indefinitely to remain in accordance with WP:COI. --Ideogram 16:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single sentence in the article that was put there by me. However, there is currently an agreed upon mediation process to correct errors and remove OR from the article. I will continue to cooperate with the mediation process and ensure the accuracy of the article. I suggest Danko accept the mediation or refrain from participating in the related discussions. Regards. --Prof. Afshar 16:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that and thank you for your cooperation. Mainly I just want to urge Danko to do the same. --Ideogram 16:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ideogram, I have accepted the mediation for third time already, and the article can be changed by everyone anyway he likes, except for Afshar, or Afshar sockpuppet friend. Wikipedia is not and advertisement board, and Afshar has already claimed he does not want to contribute to Wikipedia except on his promo. The current article does not contain OR - original research. It contains replies to Afshar claims, where is clearly shown that Afshar is mathematically inconsistent. Pointing out with mathematical calculation that one makes wrong claims is NOT original research, as posting a proof of the fact $3^{2}+4^{2}=5^{2}$. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you to not edit the article because I believe you have a conflict of interest here. Please read the policy. I am also not interested in your claims; that is for the mediator and the other participants to evaluate. --Ideogram 08:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research None of the objections to Afshar [1] introduce a theory or method, all objections use the standard QM formalism, [2] none of the objections ingtroduce original ideas, principle of complementarity cannot be violated, and is mathematical theorem, [3] none of objections define new terms, [4] none of the definitions of preexisting terms is changed, [5] all sources are reputable preprint servers. The first two points are violated by Afshar`s publications which [1] introduces new method to calculate the visibility and distinguishability not prescribed by the standard formalism, [2] presents original idea (no reputable physicist before defended mathematically wrong statement that complementarity is violated). Also personally I did not cited myself, although I can do that because the Wikipedia policy allows that if my article is verifiable source, my article was added as reference by Carl Looper, who is computer programmer and verified the mathematical correctness of my work, also my edits were to make explicit the position of prof. Qureshi, and D. Reitzner which was released in 2007. In fact Afshar deleted Carl Looper`s reference to my work with a well documented insult and personal attack saying that *the reference to well-known crackpot is removed*! So Afshar better stop his accusations of other editors on the base of OR. Also I propose to Afshar to open a new section and put passages which contain mis-statement of his own claims. Passages that contain opinion of other people can NOT be changed under negotiation by Afshar, the passages are exact quotations from verifiable sources, so they represent factual truth about the position of the authors expressing those views. Danko Georgiev MD 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Slow down. Please let the mediator guide the discussion. It is best if you do not introduce many issues at once since that will only confuse the discussion. --Ideogram 08:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only one point here, there is no original research in the critique section. I have backed-up with facts this thesis, so I hope there is nothing confusing and we can proceed next. Of course that the mediator should lead the discussion, but this is the first thing that must be resolved, since Afshar insists that my edits are OR. Danko Georgiev MD 09:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let the mediator decide the first thing that must be resolved. --Ideogram 09:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you have finally caught up with the rest of us, Ideogram Dndn1011 12:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to snipe at me I will happily leave and let you wallow in each others' filth. --Ideogram 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ideogram: "...and let you wallow in each others' filth." With all due respect, this is unbecoming language. Please kindly refrain from use of such unsavory vocabulary. Thanks! -- Prof. Afshar 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Section Afshar interpretation

Afshar urges modification of the section of his views, but the editors that modify the section on Afshar`s claim must provide exact quotations of Afshar! I personally have studied all of his work and know exactly where and what is written. Warning for Afshar: you CANNOT modify your claims in other words because it is Original Research [claims by the author itself, that represent views not published in reputable source!!!], read carefully again the Wikipedia policy. The meaning of the passage on the particle behaviour on the passage through the lens must be supported by exact quotation here in the discussion, and I take the obligation to myself insert Afshar`s request for change if there is evidence for the necessary change, if such quotation is not provided by Afshar the passage that I have edited does not represent the published views of Afshar. Also Afshar`s views seem to have evolved since 2004, because now he wants to reject that he questioned the Eibnstein`s photon idea. If Afshar rejects what he has said, this can be regflected in the article, in the form, Afshar in 2007 took back his accusations of Einstein, and considered that his 2004 claim is wrong. p.s. If Afshar says that New Scientist mis-quoted him, then he can pursue legal actions in the court. Unless this is done Afshar cannot accuse New scientist as he did in Wikipedia saying that he didnot write article himself. I do believe if Afshar starts a process against New Scientist he will lose immediately because the journalists have tapes with records of their interviews! Danko Georgiev MD 07:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Danko, it is very important that you let the mediator lead the discussion. We cannot have you talking about everything related to this case at once; we need to proceed point by point. --Ideogram 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ideogram 100%. The question is if Danko presists in ignoring the process the mediator is trying to put in place, then what? I guess we all just glare at him in silence or something..... Danko, we are here to report notable verifiable facts from a neutral point of view, not to throw accusations around or engage in psuedo-legalities. You contributions do a lot to upset people and very little to advance the article. You bring up things that are completely irrelevant and just your own personal inferences. Should Afshar take someone to court then win or lose, we can mention this in the article. As there is no such court case it is pointless to spectulate on one. If Afshar has changed his mind, this can be reflected in the article too, along with any original claims. If there has been misquoting of Afshar or things repeated out of context, then Afshar should have the opportunity to provide verifiable evidence to the contrary. This is actually quite a simnple process, as long as people behave in a clam and respectful manner and engage in constructive discussion. Dndn1011 12:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Danko, you are not proceeding along with the mediation in good faith, and as usual are muddying the water with erroneous conjectures and agitated hyperbolae. I have not been misquoted, and I will not retract my statement regarding Einstein's views on photons. In fact every physicist with a reasonable knowledge of the history of light agrees that Einstein deserved the Nobel prize for his Relativity theories and not the explanation of photoelectric effect, as it can be explained by classical electromagnetism and stochastic electrodynamics. The fact that no physicist has brought up this issue during the past 2.5 years should give you enough pause to question your own judgment. Please refrain from discussing issues out of place, and allow the mediator to mediate!-- Prof. Afshar 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are not helping. When I recommended you let the mediator lead the discussion, I meant that advice for all parties. This mediation cannot proceed if you cannot control yourselves and have to respond directly to everything the other side says. --Ideogram 18:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Ideogram, either you, or the mediator (who seems not to have the time to chime in,) need to ensure that the agreed upon procedure is followed. I'm going to post the next disputed segment according to the mediator's recommendation and I will not address Danko's comments without the presence of the mediator. I'm waiting to hear from the mediator. -- Prof. Afshar 18:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to try to control the procedure. I am only going to step in when the conversation degenerates or goes off track. Please be patient. I think it is best for all sides if you take time to think and avoid posting in haste. --Ideogram 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Ideogram, I will be waiting for the mediation. Indeed the presence of a mediator is good idea, I hope finally we can have more civilized conversation. Danko Georgiev MD 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of article

I'm back, but will be gone this weekend. I am a student, after all. Since things have calmed down, I would like to continue the previous plan. If you feel that there is something wrong with a section, add it to the "Disputed Segments (Revised)" section, and then I will add another section for discussion of that disputed text. We already began discussion on one piece of text. Just add text that you feel should be changed, and in the new talk page sction put your summarized argument. Please remain civil, take your turn, and summarize your objections and arguments. Thank you. Hopefully, we can start making some progress. Oh, and you don't need to wait for other discussion to finish before addaing another disputed segment. Sdirrim 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like everyone to refrain from edits escept those discussed here, and I will take care of those. Thank you! Sdirrim 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To keep things simple here, I will try to keep the article in the same state as when this plan was introduced, save for edits that we all agree on. Thus, I will revert recent changes made since February 9. We all agreed not to make any changes except those we agree upon, and those not familiar with the article are unaware of the current conflict. As such, I have reverted the article to when the agreement was made. Sdirrim 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons ypu mention, some of the recent changes were claimed to have been based on principles such as NPOV and encyclopedicity. I strongly disagree with that editor's application of those principles here.--CSTAR 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

One last thing: as I have mentioned before, I will be gone from the 15th to the 19th. This would be an excellent opportunity to have a reasonable discussion on the disputed parts of the article and show that everyone can keep things under control. If things spin out of control, then I may have to put in a request for formal arbitration (get the people who actually can ban you from an article). Everyone, please show that you can remain civil for 4-5 days. Thank you. Sdirrim 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. Wow. There has been absolutely no activity here. Thank you everyone for waiting. And I think that the recent edit can be left as is, because it didn't change any content. So, since I am back, please discuss what segments of the article need changing. (By the way, you didn't need to cease activity here. I just asked that everyone be civil and not make any changes. But this works too.) Sdirrim 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Update on the peer-reviewed paper

Sdirrim, the latest paper's ref. is Found. Phys. 37 (2), (2007), 295-305. The arXiv link is: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702188. Please update the article accordingly. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, for this I think you don't need permission, because it updates reference style. Permissions are required only when you classify other's work as "crackpot", and when you want to vandalize the article by blanking useful information. I have updated the reference. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. The idea was that to avoid controversy, we shouldn't do any edits that affect the content. Moving spaces around or just adding references should be fine, as long as nobody objects. And on that topic, is there any content of the article that anyone objects to? Sdirrim 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What did we say about attacks ad hominem? Subtle or not, please refrain from personal attacks. Sdirrim 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing debate section

The following point is missing it's counterpoint:

Niels Bohr stated "an adequate tool for a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[11]

• If the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), how can Bohr's principle of complementarity be violated by the experiment?[13][14][15]

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

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

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

--Carl A Looper 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carl, you already engage yourself with position - you mean that if Afshar were correct, then Bohr's claim that complementarity reflects the formalism is potentially false. However indeed claculations show that Afshar uses inconsistent formalism at first place. Since we have decided not to finalize the whole article with conclsion who is correct and who is not [because we cannot satisfy all the three parties in this dialogue] then your suggested repairing of Bohr's views should be rejected. I vote against your suggested change. Danko Georgiev MD 06:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Danko, the formalism (or inconsistant version therof) may very well be wrong as well, but such is not (directly) addressed by the experiment (other than the possibility of the inconsistency you indicate). But complementarity can still fail even if the correct formalism doesn't. For there is nothing in the formalism that requires complementarity be correct. Or to put it another way - if there is, (and I am happy to entertain this possibility) then we need more than Bohr's word for that. That is the point I'm making. To quote a few words by Bohr as the only defense of complementarity required - is an insult to both your own work and everyone else's on this subject. --Carl A Looper 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested deletion: (in the ongoing debate)"The statistical demonstration of interference in Afshar's experiment, as in the double slit experiment, does not rule out the interference of individual photons." - this statement in my opinion should be DELETED. This contradicts the information that Afshar has performed a single-photon experiment with the same result. So the single photon setup demonstrates clearly the interference of single photons. Please vote below. Danko Georgiev MD 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we put the disputed segments of the article in the disputed segments (revised) section of the talk page, and then start new sections for each disputed segment? It's what has already been agreed upon, and it will be a lot easier to read. Thanks! I'll do it myself in this case. Sdirrim 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Piece #2

Suggested deletion: (in the ongoing debate)

"The statistical demonstration of interference in Afshar's experiment, as in the double slit experiment, does not rule out the interference of individual photons."

- this statement in my opinion should be DELETED. This contradicts the information that Afshar has performed a single-photon experiment with the same result. So the single photon setup demonstrates clearly the interference of single photons. Please vote below. Danko Georgiev MD 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
reposted by Sdirrim 16:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed this statement has no sense Dndn1011 20:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. DELETE. -- Prof. Afshar 22:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. But there is no nonsense in the counterpoint. The counterpoint merely indicates that the previous point, (which disputes the validity of a statistical demonstration of interference), is incorrect - ie. that a statistical demonstration (of interference) is consistent with (ie. does not rule out) the otherwise theorised "understanding" that individual photons interfere. It is the previous point which is nonsense and as a result the counterpoint suffers some contagion from such. And so I suggest removal of both point and counterpoint. --Carl A Looper 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In case there is any latent confusion here, the demonstration of individual photon interference is not being denied by the above disputed statement. It is, in fact, being denied by the previous statement (for which the above disputed statement is the counter-statement).

Here is the relevant quote from the previous statement:

The claim of complementarity violation in Afshar's experiment is a statistical argument that applies only to large numbers photons, not to individuals (cf "the particle" above in Bohr's statement is a reference to a single photon, not to groups of photons).

The counterpoint (being proposed for deletion) can be understood in simpler terms as:

A demonstration of interference, using a large number of photons, does not rule out the idea of interference for individual photons.

--Carl A Looper 05:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I might also add that the interference of individual photons can ONLY be demonstrated statistically. (Or I'd like to see an experiment that does otherwise). For example, if we use a single photon in Afshar's experiment how do we know it didn't just miss the wires - so to speak. It is only by means of multiple photons, (whether one after the other or at the same time) - and the standard rationalisation - that we arrive at the idea that individual photons interfere - or to put it another way, why would the Afshar experiment, considered in exactly the same way as any other statistical demonstration of interference, not also arrive at the same idea that individual photons are interfering. --Carl A Looper 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On a general note one might ask why we ascribe the wave function to individual photons, rather than (say) groups of photons. The first answer is "because we can", ie. without causing any conflict with the emperical data. But this doesn't tell us why. One reason why is that it allows us to rule out any latent suspicion that interference is the result of inter-particle interactions. That is, if you do postualate individual photons, they must be ones that self-interfere - otherwise how would you explain the interference pattern created by so called "single particle" experiments (particles emitted one after the other). You couldn't. And, of course, if you don't postulate individual particles then you have no individual particles to interfere with each other. So either way particles don't interfere with each other. They either self-interfere or don't exist at all. Is there any reason why we should not postulate individual particles? There are two quasi-reasons or side-effects to postulating individual particles. One is that the postulated particle must be considered capable of "superposition". We all seem capable of modelling this so no problem there. The other is that our particle, in a state of superposition, finds itself unable to "collapse" so to speak - to become a single particle detection. This one seems to be of particular annoyance to most theorists. Superposition is fine. But wave function collapse? The problem is that rationalisation inevitably erases any information we might otherwise associate with individual particle detections, in much the same way that jpeg compression of a digital image tends to erase certain attributes of the original image without necessarily violating any of the visual structure. From the jpeg image, we can not recover the precise pattern of noise associated with the original uncompressed image. Likewise, from the quantum formalism, we can not (re)construct the precise pattern of individual detections that occur(ed) in any particular experiment. --Carl A Looper 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So what is the decision then? Should this section be edited or just deleted? And if it is to be edited, what edits should be made? At least I can see that you all agree that it needs to be changed. Sdirrim 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is concensus here to delete. I think Carl was merely commenting. Dndn1011 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure there is consensus. There is possibly some confusion here I suspect. Is it to delete just the mentioned counterpoint (ie. that which I'm defending) or both point and counterpoint. My vote is for both (or neither) but the other votes appear only to be in relation to the referenced counterpoint - ie. as distinct from the entire point/counterpoint. If this is the case I would actually vote against, for the reasons mentioned. We need some clarification from the other voters/editors here. --Carl A Looper 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK to recap.. the text in question is:

"The statistical demonstration of interference in Afshar's experiment, as in the double slit experiment, does not rule out the interference of individual photons."

Interested parties, please state your choice below the following list using the format I have used for my own choice:

• DELETE (removed the text)
• KEEP (keep as is)
• MODIFY (suggest a change to the statement)
• COUNTER (suggest a counter arguement to add)
• OTHER (suggest some other action)

Dndn1011 10:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE Dndn1011 10:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• OTHER - delete both the referenced text AND the text above it.--Carllooper 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC). I'd also point out that the paragraph supposedly representing Drezet's position just confuses Drezet's position. I'd have no problem with just a link to Drezet in the links section. --Carl A Looper 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• OTHER - delete both the referenced text AND the text above it. I would like to point out, in relation to the discussion below (#Disputed piece #4), that the Drezet reference is a preprint, which, lacking further significance, must be regarded as non-reliable (Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources). --Art Carlson 18:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

May I have a verdict please? To only delete the section described above (as is the consensus, on the basis of irrelevence), to also delete the reference of Drezet (on the basis of an unreliable source - ArXiv), or to also delete the section above it (on the point/counterpoint system)? It seems that everyone on both side believes that we should delete the referenced text. Should we also delete the quote from Drezet? And finally, would only deleting the referenced text and not the text above it lead to a breakdown in article neutrality? We all agreed to delete this section. Now we just need to answer the remaining two questions and I will act accordingly. Sdirrim 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is confusion, I stated the options from the perspective of teh current article. Thus the two votes for OTHER are really the same as DELETE because the article currently only has the first statement. I did not include a DELETE BOTH option because the response does not actuallye exist in teh article so there is nothing to delete other than the first statement. Dndn1011 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there wasn't confusion before, there certainly is now. The proposal of this section is to delete the statement

"The statistical demonstration of interference in Afshar's experiment, as in the double slit experiment, does not rule out the interference of individual photons."

In addition to eliminating this statement, I want to throw out the bullet point above, starting with "Afshar's experiment does not yield which way information and demonstrate interference effects ..." and ending with "The whole reasoning is circular and for this reason misleading. - Aurelien Drezet".

--Art Carlson 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mia Colpa... OK I see the light now. Perhaps we should start this again? Dndn1011 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My preference remains to delete both bullets (and probably a lot more, possibly the whole section), but if it helps move things forward, I am willing to first eliminate the second bullet and then discuss eliminating the first one. --Art Carlson 20:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So I think this is an accurate summary:

Danko Georgiev MD DELETE

Afshar DELETE

Dndn1011 DELETE

Carl Looper: DELETE (but only if both bullets deleted!)

Art Carlson DELETE

I'd say we can count that as concensus :) Dndn1011 18:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a consensus. My vote for deletion is conditional on both bullets being deleted. My vote differs from Art's vote which, while he prefers deletion of both, does not condition deletion of one on deletion of the other. It is not clear to me, from earlier debates by Afshar, that he is not also voting for deletion of both points. --Carl A Looper 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I also ask that a user's signature not be used by anyone other than the owner of that signature, at least in a situation such as this. It is extremely misleading.--Carl A Looper 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To keep things clear, I suggest that if anyone reposts someone else's signature as part of a quotation, that they include "--reposted by [your signature]" as I have been doing. Sdirrim 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the arguments above, I am deleting the disputed piece: The statistical demonstration of interference in Afshar's experiment, as in the double slit experiment, does not rule out the interference of individual photons. Although this is a counterpoint for the paragraph above it, it is invalid. Also, its purpose as a counterpoint is not immediately obvious. I will list the paragraph above the disputed section as "Disputed Piece #5", where the decision can be made to delete it, alter it, or add a valid counterpoint. However, "Disputed Piece #2" has been addressed. Sdirrim 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Piece #3

The following point is missing it's counterpoint:

Niels Bohr stated "an adequate tool for a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[11]

• If the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), how can Bohr's principle of complementarity be violated by the experiment?[13][14][15]

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

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

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

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

Yes I agree with this, it has been my position since I first entered into this debate. Either there should be both points or neither. I would vote for neither as together they simply cancel eachother out. Dndn1011 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carl and Dndn1011. Objectivity is served either by removal of the critical quotes, or by addition of the rebuttals to those critiques. From the point of view of Encyclopedic styles, however, it would be best not to have any quotes, and simply cite the ref.s papers, etc for both the critiques and rebuttals. -- Prof. Afshar 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Afshar. For anyone who recalls the origin of this section it was on the insistence of one editor, that certain points be made (in direct conflict with the opinion of other editors) that necessitated, as an alternative solution, the addition of the counterpoints. If the counterpoints are subsequently removed, so too should be the original points. I vote we just remove the whole section. It's hardly representative of the wider debate. (I still very much like the introductory remark) --Carl A Looper 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Originally this section was called 'Critiques' and in order to attempt to make progress in spite of this other editor's obstructions, renamed the section "On Going Debate", and the idea was to present a concise summary of the debate within it. This never went entirely to plan, as we can see, because it still remained an unbalanced section. Dndn1011 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT delete. The segment explicitly states that Bohr says the PC is tight to mathematial formalism. See my comment below on Afshar view of PC vs. HUR. If Bohr says that one first must disprove the math formalism, you cannot attribute some "wrong interpretation" to Bohr. Bohr is not alive to defend himself, so this quotation is sufficiently explicit. So from this quoation follows that Afshar MUST disprove the formalism, if he does not so, then he don't have rights to claim he has disproved Bohr. Danko Georgiev MD 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not, and cannot, have any opinion in this, as I am neutral. But it does seem (though I am not an expert) that the "counterpoint" does not directly refute Bohr's point, rather, it establishes conditions under which Bohr's claim could be shown to be false. This is a neutral, independent observation, and I support neither side. Sdirrim 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first statement basically says "Complementarity is an essential part of the formalism, and since the experiement obeys the formalismn, it can't violate complementarity". The second statement says (or should say) that complementarity can be violated by an experiment that otherwise obeys the formalism. The second statement is correct and not the first, because if an experiment was found that showed a violation, the whole of the quantum mechanical formalism is not rendered invalid by it. Bohr simply presented an argument that suggested that because we can never observe complementarity being violated, we never need to face that paradox and have to try to explain it. In short Bohr was saying "there is nothing to see here, lets move on". His basis for this is the idea that what you can't observe does not matter. If you cannot observe a paradox, there is no paradox. Afshar's experiment may in fact show that it is possible to observe the paradox. If this is true, then the formalism is still valid, but only up to a point. It means that it is incomplete because it can not explain the paradox although it can adequately explain most other experimental observations. The first statement by itself is meaningless. It is in effect saying "Because Bohr was right it is impossible for complementarity to be violated." This is not a sensible thing to have in the article, in my opinion. Dndn1011 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BPC vs. HUP

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

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

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

Well that's one definition of complementarity one could use, and if correct, the principle of complementarity would be redundant. But I think you'll find the experiment addresses Bohr's principle of complementarity - which was not meant to be redundant as far as I can tell. --Carl A Looper 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that a lot of effort has been put into a mathematical definition of complementarity which is very important work, but there are aspects of Bohr's principle which have yet to be defined in mathematical terms - if ever they can. Bohr's principle appears to emerge out of a failure to experimentally reproduce a particular kind of paradox - one implied by quantum theory. It is arguably, in such a failure that Bohr sees the substance of the principle. That there is something about the physical world (rather than the theory per se) that stops us "concluding a paradox". But what was the paradox? For that you need to look at the experiments proposed by Einstein in relation to the quantum theory. What was Einstein hoping to achieve? He was hoping to acheive something akin to what Afshar does acheive. I don't know how this is not so bleeding obvious. That said, we can't rely on Bohr to qualify his principle in response to Afshar's experiment - for obvious reasons. So instead we turn back to the quantum theory (the formalism) for some defense of complementarity. But it's not from the formalism that complementarity can be re-derived. It comes out of left field, as a postulate if you like - (supposedly logical) - that the physical world does not permit a high contrast paradox such as the one Afshar's experiment (and the formalism) might otherwise imply. --Carl A Looper 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The non-commutation used in the unitary time evolution using the Schrödinger equation and the Hamiltonian is the result of the QM formalism (Fourier transforms) and embodied in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) relations which are NOT the same as Bohr's Principle of Complementarity BPC. Fromulation of BPC was derived by a number of investigators such as Greenberger and Yasin, Englert and others in different ways (some using HUP, and some avoiding it completely), and is embodied in the Greenberger-Yasin inequality (V^2+K^2<=1)--which for some strange reason has been called the Englert-Greenberger relation in Wikipeida, but that's another topic that needs correction. At any rate, the BPC deals not with the deterministic wavefunction time evolution process (as opposed to HUP), it rather deals with the measurement process addressed in the measurement theory that involves non-deterministic events such as the collapse of the wavefunction etc. My experiment violates NOT the deterministic QM formalism, it rather violates the BPC embodied in Greenberger-Yasin inequality. The intro to the article must be corrected to clarify this fact as well. -- Prof. Afshar 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, your point is clear on the duality relation, but it is not shared by a lot of physicists. Indeed Qureshi, Reitzner, and me, have all shown that you do math error in calculating the which way "distiguishability" to be 1, as indeed it is zero. All of those 3 papers as far as I know are currently in process of peer-reviewing. Concerning the complementarity principle and HUR, while the duality relation has been shown to be independent on Heisenberg's inequalities, it is still the case that violation of complementarity will violate the HUR. The explanation is as above - you violate PC by inconsistent mathematics, and hence in inconsistent model everything is provable, including that HUR are not valid. Danko Georgiev MD 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing I do not understand is how can it be said that which way "distiguishability" to be 0, when all photons not scattered by the wires appear to come from one hole or the other. The claim that distiguishability is 0 seems counter to experimental evidence, regardless of what the mathematics says. As I have argued previously, if we accept that distiguishability is 0 then this means that just because a photon appears to have come from a hole it does not mean that it did go through that hole. Through other arguments I have already presented this would mean that the only logical conclusion would be that photons do not travel in the classical sense of travelling at all, and that even with only one hole open, we still could not say that the photon went through the open hole. If it is appropriate for the article to have these mathematical "proofs" surely we need to also point out how this relates to what is actually observed? And do not these proofs also invalidate the application of complementarity because such application can have no meaning if which-way information has no meaning? This has been my question for a long time now, and I am still waiting for an answer. Dndn1011 11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Danko, you said: "your point is clear on the duality relation, but it is not shared by a lot of physicists." Quite the contrary is true! You have cited 3 unpublished papers, (which constitute OR in Wikipedia) as the source of your claim. I have cited at least 16 peer-reviewed papers by major physicists in my papers that define complementarity as the Greenberger-Yasin relationship, and define its parameters as I have defined. Please offer peer-reviewed published papers supporting your claim, otherwise, please kindly acknowledge the fact that in the absence of such peer-reviewed sources, your claim is OR, and all references to it in the article needs to be removed-- until of course, it is published in a major peer-reviewed physics journal. I hope the Mediator can join this discussion soon.-- Prof. Afshar 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, your OR complaints need to stop. I have adressed clearly this issue in previous post and I won't repeat myself. You needed 3 years for your paper to get published so stop "pushing" the others what should they do with their work. My work will be published when it is published, you can refer to it by the reputable pre-print server. Danko Georgiev MD 09:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the interest of civility, I will respond after the Mediator catches up. Waiting... -- Prof. Afshar 12:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I just want to say that I have no clue as to what you are talking about. I am not versed in this field, and the technical discussion is over my head. However, I can (an will) address the OR argument. From Wikipedia:Attribution: "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." As it stands right now, Danko, your 'claim' is not "attributable to a reliable, published source". If you can reference reliable, published sources for your claim, then your claim will not be considered to be OR. However, claims based on unpublished works are considered to be OR. Therefore, your unpublished papers are not valid references for the article. This is not to say, however, that your works are somehow inferior or worthless. They are just invalid for the purposes of Wikipedia referencing. If Afshar's references are not published yet, then his claims could be considered to be OR also. Sdirrim 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, as I see it. Dndn1011 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, If you think that anything should be removed on the basis of OR, then you should provide specific examples in the article, and post it in the Disputed Segments (revised) talk page section. Sdirrim 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If a violation of complementarity throws the formalism into question, (as it might) it just means we might be able to see some violation of the formalism in the Afshar experiment. But if we don't - there are three possible reasons why - not just one. Either the suggested "knock on" effect is incorrect, or this effect has yet to be found, or the said violation of complementarity is incorrect. Three logical possibilitys. Not one. --Carl A Looper 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Greenberger-Yasin inequality (V^2 + K^2 <= 1) does not so much define complementarity as such. It defines the conditions in which complementarity can be considered correct. We could just as easily use the expression (V^2 + K^2 > 1) ,ie. to define the conditions in which complementarity can be considered incorrect. A violation of complementarity is not a violation of either expression. Otherwise all we'd be arguing is that:

If (V^2 + K^2 <= 1) then (V^2 + k^2 <= 1)

Or

If (V^2 + K^2 > 1) then (V^2 + K^2 > 1)

Which reduces to:

If complementarity is correct then complementarity is correct.

Or

If complementarity is incorrect then complementarity is incorrect.

The following is a less pointless reading of the inequality:

If (V^2 + K^2 <= 1) then complementarity is correct

Else complementarity is incorrect

Or reciprically, saying the same thing:

If (V^2 + K^2 > 1) then complementarity is incorrect

Else complementarity is correct

--Carl A Looper 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Disputed piece #4

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

--

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

--

Afshar, please shorten the big pasages that you want to delete. It is obvious what section you want to delete. The ArXiV e-print is a REPUTABLE source, as well as PhilSci e-print. Recent breakthrough theorem proving the Poincare conjecture posted by Grisha Perelman has never been published in peer-review journal, and the only 3 papers by Perelman are in ArXiv. Yet he did the greatest thing in the 21st century mathematics, and he was awarded Fields medal, which Perelman has REJECTED, saying that the joury itself is NOT competent to judge his mathematics. Your request cannot be satisfied on grounds that the quoted e-prints are not reputable. I vote against. Danko Georgiev MD 07:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Presentation on a preprint server like ArXiv certainly qualifies as "publication", but can it be considered a "reputable" source? Certainly a lot (hopefully most) of the articles there are reputable, but since there is no editorial selection or peer review, it is possible to publish junk there, and many articles certainly are junk. Perelman's proof is notable through it's coverage in the popular and technical press, so a link to the arXiv version is appropriate. Articles that appear only on a preprint server, without significant comments from other sources, can be considered in no way reliable and must be treated as original research, at least as far as the content is concerned.

In the present case, we are trying to describe a controversy/dialog. An online preprint is a reliable indication that a participant in the discussion makes a particular argument. If the preprints do not attract independent attention, then the question is how to decide which ones are notable enough to report. The only criterion that occurs to me, although it is difficult to apply neutrally, is to base inclusion on the notability of the author.

If we can trust Wikipedia (not always a good idea), we can note that only two opponents cited, Bill Unruh and Luboš Motl, have their own article. (At least they are the only ones that have been given a blue link.) Unless strong arguments for the notability of the other authors can be provided, I would support eliminating them.

--Art Carlson 09:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carlson, your statement is extremely ridiculous. The authors in most published scientific literature don't have Wikipedia articles. Indeed there are very strict standards when writing about living people, and usually even distinguished scientists don't have Wiki-entry under their name. Wikipedia is NOT reputable source for Wikipedia. It is paradoxical, and self-contradictory. Please support Afshar on logical grounds, but do not propose clear violations of Wiki-policy. Please find text in the Wiki-policy that supports the Wikipedia entries as reputable. Danko Georgiev MD 09:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I have seen that you have PhD in physics. If so, your posts should rely on physical arguments of what is true or false, and not on extra-scientific grounds how popular is a scientist, and whether he has an Wiki-entry. Danko Georgiev MD 09:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gee! Very ridiculous maybe, but surely not extreme?

I agree that the existence of a Wikipedia article is a poor criteria to determine notability. Publication in a preprint server is even worse. Please suggest a better alternative.

Talk pages are not for the purpose of discussing physics. Editorial arguments, such as the notability of an author, are the relevant criteria here. Wikipedia:Attribution: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."

--Art Carlson 10:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct; however in order to maintain a neutral point of view counter arguements should be from sources of equivalent stature and notability as the sources for the arguments themselves. This is important because otherwise bias will occur. Print material is not necessary; if so we should have to take out Unruh's argument which has never been printed to my knowlegde. But Unruh makes up for this by being notable. If there is no limit to this then al kinds of people will jump in and try to gain notability through contributing to this article. That is not appropriate behavior for editors here. So what we need to do to resolve this is check the sources for the text that Afshar suggests removing. We then need to reach concensus on whether these sources are strong enough for inclusion here taking into account where they have previously been published in some form and who is responsible for them. Also, the view that path information does not exist even without the wires present needs to actually be relevant to what Afshar's paper claims. Finally, if the preseence of this view creates more problems than it resolves, it might be best to leave it out of the article. This is the reason for various arguments I presented about the consequences of accepting the view that there is no path information even without the wires. Very elementary logic will show that this would have far reaching consqeuences and thus cannot be trusted without a thourough review by experts.

My conclusion is simple; we leave a reference to a new wiki article to satisfy the needs of Danko et al, in which they can put their postulations. As far as I can see, they have no real place in *this* article. Surely this is a viable solution? Dndn1011 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dndn, previously Linas has put equivalent example with water waves, that creates the Afshar observations, the lensing is achieved by varying the depth of the water tank, there are two slits, there is image. All this is explainable only by wave properties and never requires particle-like trajectory. Every image of a slit in the water setup is created by wave that passes through both slits, so no which way. Reply to Carlson, e-prints are notable enough, because the claims are verifiable. Everyone can download and read the paper. Unruh's and Motl's blogs are extremely bad sources, because there is no full argument, only sketch of a such, which is proven to be false argument, and always remember that this blog page can any moment be deleted so there will be NO RECORD of what has been said or written. Motl and Unruh after the deletion can deny what they have said or written. In contrast deletion from the e-print cannot be done freely by the author, and in case of ArXiv the original paper always remains on the server, there appears new [src] version that says that paper is removed, but you can always read it via clicking on version 1. Danko Georgiev MD 06:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. (regarding the bolded part of my post) If one is not competent to judge whether a provided proof is valid or not, how/why such incompetent editor should be able to propose deletions of text that he/she is incompetent to understand. Everyone should edit what is in his own competence. Some editors are spell-checkers, and repair spelling errors [see the last edit] but they do not propose/advocate text deletions. Danko Georgiev MD 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Danko, you persistently misunderstand what we are trying to do here. we are not here to argue of our own personal viewpoints on the experiment or other experiments. My reasons for presenting arguments that I present have been for the sake of trying to gain clarity for the non expert reader which is what this article should be for. Hence I ask lots of questions where things are not clear. If you state something that does not make sense, I will ask questions. Check my posts and you will see this pattern. Personal conclusions I try to keep off this page (if there have been infringements, appologies to anyone who cares). However what you do is bring in all kinds of sources that have not been vetted by anyone but yourself, you present OR arguments. Additionally, it is not our job to validate proofs. This is why there is no need for what you call a competant editor. We should be reporting on competancy here, not providing it. The question is only whether what you claim meets the standards of Wikipedia for inclusing in the article. I do not believe so. Additionally the inclusion of all this material you present appears to only confuse the reader. For example, you give an example of a similat experiment conducted using water waves and yet I can not for the life of me see the connection. Water waves are waves, and it is clear how those waves are supposed to behave. The point about Afshar's experiment is not that the behavior agrees with wave nature of light, but that it does so while also retaining which-way information for individual photons. In the water based experiment there is no equivalent of photons. So there is no valid comparison. Thus, either answer my question for the sake of creating a clarity, or clarify what you say so that it does make sense, or take such irrelevances away from the discussion.

One further thing, an e-print is not notable by itself. Notability is assessed by concensus. It would appear that the only one breaking a unanimus vote on whether your contibutions a notable, is yourself. This is making the whole process of creating a good article much harder than it should be. Dndn1011 11:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dndn, when it comes to science you must understand what you write. Competence here is what matters. The usage of appropriate words, and expressions cannot be estimated properly by not competent editor. The fact that you don't understand the subtle differences between various formulations, and the fact that you don't understand what is the link between "water waves" and "light waves" just reveals your incompetence. Yet I don't mind to help you: the term "wave". Wikipedia accumulates useful information due to competent editors that edit topics that they understand, and some entries get spoiled because there are unfortunately editors that are incompetent in what they are writing. I will not respond to any further comments by Dndn, as I believe his posts are off-topic, incompetent and derogatory. Danko Georgiev MD 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I argued above that preprints cannot automatically be considered reliable/notable because there is practically no constraint on who submits what. Danko Georgiev has not spoken to this point. --Art Carlson 12:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carlson, refresh your memory what means Reliable in Wiki-policy, and do not use together reliable/notable with a dash. Danko Georgiev MD 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carlson, I usually deposit most of my work to be available free at e-prints, and I am well acquainted with the requirements. For each section there is moderator, that allows for the newly added "pending items" to be publicly available. You have to be registeres, and if you are not scientist, and/or your manuscript does not satisfy the criteria for scientific work, it will be embargoed by the moderator. This does not mean that the work is peer-reviewed, but e-print is NOT blog, and e-prints contain PhD theses, as well as newly written revolutionary works that have not passed peer-review (the Grisha Perelman case). E-prints are verifiable sources, and reputable in sense that you can check the registration data of the author, which is subject to moderation also. Of course you may try to register yourself with pseudonym, and try to upload a nonsense paper/joke just to disprove me experimentally. I don't believe that you will succeed to do this, especially in arXiv where operates a novel endorcement system. Danko Georgiev MD 13:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Dr. Georgiev, you know more about the preprint system than I do, but the article on arXiv#Peer-review states, "Endorsement comes from either another arXiv author who is an endorser or is automatic, depending on various evolving criteria. Endorsers are not asked to review the paper for errors, but to check if the paper is appropriate for the intended subject area." This sounds like a very low bar, so I still think publication in a preprint server is not in itself sufficient reason to cite an idea in a Wikipedia article. Do you really think that is reason enough, in any case? --Art Carlson 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I feel a clarification is needed here: Danko's paper is in PhilSci archive (a "Philosophy of Science" archive which has a very low credibility in physics if any.) Qureshi's paper is under peer-review, and I know he is having trouble getting his paper published. Reitzner "paper" is only two pages and merely a comment, lacking a reasonable level of detail for a paper in physics. Although Qureshi and Reitzner papers are on arXiv, neither authors are notable, and since arXiv is not a reputable peer-reviewed reference, their thesis including Danko's, which challenges established physics literature MUST be considered OR according to Wiki rules and removed from the article. -- Prof. Afshar 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If I prove that $2+2\neq 5$ this is ordinary mathematics and not OR. Afshar your maniac behavior derogating Einstein, Bohr and others, and speaking about taking the Nobel Prize of Einstein is certainly charlatanism, and even does not qualify as OR. It is not necessary to be notable scientist to prove that $2+2\neq 5$. I vote to keep the whole criticism section as it correctly represents the two types of objections raised against your nonsense. If they are removed this completely unbalances the article, since Unruh's and Motl's positions are mathematically flawed exactly as your one is. Here we are speaking about science and I suggest that others vote for Afshar's banning from Wikipedia. Afshar is charlatan searching for self-promotion. All his activities in Wikipedia have destructive purpose aiming at unbalancing the article. Published or not, viewpoints are clear. Danko Georgiev MD 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm reluctant to delete - not because I disagree with the arguments provided for removing such (ie. what is Wikipedia permitted and what isn't) but because the debate is very important, ie. irregardless of Wikipedia guidlines. One possible compromise is to set up a new "sister" article - that is about the debate - as distinct from being about the experiment, - and all the debate references moved there - where they can continue being edited. I don't know if this new article would be any more allowed than the current situation. Can one have an article about debates? If one can have an article about, say, "intelligent design", I can't see why one can't have an article about something more substantial, such as the debate in question. --Carl A Looper 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They are important. However, I believe that the arguments above have shown that the included debate references are missing reliable sources, and should not be permitted anywhere in Wikipedia until reliable sources are found. Although their importance is clear, Wikipedia (let alone this article) is not the place for these debates. Sdirrim 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One can't get any more reliable than the horses's mouth, and while Wikipedia is not the right place for debates it is the right place for articles about debates. It just depends on how it is done. Have a look at [[1]]. This was a featured article! About ID! If one can have an article about ID (!!!) I can't see how one can deny an article on debate around the Afshar experiment. Now don't get me wrong, I see great merit in the Afshar experiment and no merit whatsoever in ID. I merely draw attention to what appears permissable, irregardless of content. --Carl A Looper 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this suggestion - Carl, you save the text (and references) that you think should be moved into a seperate "Debates about quantum physics" article into a text editor, and post here when you do that. That way, I can safely remove the text from this article. Afterwards, you can create a new article as you described in your post above. Sdirrim 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me comment on the comments that Afshar has made here.

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

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

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

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

Notable $\neq$ Reliable

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

"Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it." Danko Georgiev MD 08:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that seems to be the basis of almost all of the arguments against "Disputed Piece #4". The issue was essentially whether to consider ArXiv a reliable source, and if it was not, whether to remove the references as they would have no reliable sources. However, I think that there was inadvertant confusion of "notable" and "reliable". Sdirrim 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

ArXiv can't be judged to be a reliable source or not en block, you have to look the the author(s) and judge whether they are reliable sources on a particular area of expertise. Bill Unruh, for example, is a reliable source in the field of quantum optics, on ArXiv or elsewhere. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Unruh is an expert in the field. The problem with sources such as ArXiv is that someone under the name of Bill Unruh, or Bill Unruh himself, could post a paper containing complete bogus. Also, it would remain there because there is no peer review, and because only the author can actually remove the paper. Sure, a moderator could "embargo" a paper. But, as someone supporting ArXiv said, "This does not mean that the work is peer-reviewed". Now, from Wikipedia:Attribution: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process". If an article or paper can be made publicly available without first being peer-reviewed or fact-checked, then it is no better than a questionable resource. Again, from [Wikipedia:Attribution]]: "Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves". I am not specifically referring to anyone's references or arguments, I am just discussing ArXiv's reliablility in general. Sdirrim 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmph. I note that [Wikipedia:Attribution]] also says When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications, so Unruh counts as a reliable source, on ArXiv or elsewhere.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree with Michael. Personally, even if Unruh's work was scribbled on a torn piece of tissue, I would still consider it a reliable source! I think in case of Unruh his very name should suffice to make his work not subject to Wiki OR rules. BTW/ One CANNOT post a bogus paper on arXiv using someone else’s name, because Cornell University admins. check the author’s affiliations and e-mail routes before they post it. Nonetheless, it is the author’s reputation that makes the arXiv papers notable, especially if the expert happens to have published numerous papers on the subject in the reputable peer-reviewed journals in the past, which is definitely the case with Prof. Unruh. -- Prof. Afshar 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm delighted to see that Afshar and myself agree in this subject. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What choice can there really be but to ban him?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DO NOT BAN Please see Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. I will add the {{uw-npa2|Please see WP's no personal attacks policy.}} tag to the talk page. Please follow proper procedure for trying to get a user banned. Sdirrim 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As a mediator, I shouldn't vote on this. Sdirrim 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be advised that the proper proceedure has been followed, and that Danko hit level 4 more than a year ago. You may review the voluminous talk page archives for support for this claim. He has consistently failed to heed those warnings. linas 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, I would suggest that both as mediator and as a relative newcomer to this situation it may be best for you not to vote on this topic. Please also note that we do not have the power to ban anyone. The attempt here is to see if there is a concensus (and failing that a Supermajority) for escalating this matter futher. It is quite correct for me to suggest this and to see what current opinions are. It can be seen that this question is being taken seriously by editors. Dndn1011 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A consensus to escalate the matter is one thing. Voting on whether someone should be banned is something else. There is no need to have a consensus on whether a user should be reported, and that is really all the power that we have, to SUGGEST that editors take action. But it still is a nice idea to get a consensus. It just implies that we are directly voting on whether Danko should be banned. And I realize (and agree) that as a impartial mediator, I should have no vote in this. Sdirrim 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If a concensus is shown to ban, then admins can more quickly reach a decision, hence the reason for this being stated in the way that it is. Dndn1011 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I can find no evidence that Danko has ever been put on probation. For example, his name does not show up on WP:Probation, and there are no notification notes on this page or his own Talk page. Could you give us some details, please? --Art Carlson 09:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Art, back in March 2006 admin Gareth Hughes mediated a dispute that ended with a request by him to Danko "to cease from unsubstantiated claims". Danko then agreed to "prepare an article on complementarity in Afshar's experiment that I hope will be strong enough to pass a peer-reviewing and get published in journal - therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued". It wasn't long before he broke his agreement and continued to push his OR, and make personal attacks. The rest is too cumbersome to mention, but it is all in the archives. Just take a quick look at this to see what I mean!-- Prof. Afshar 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Technically, a mediator does not have power to impose sanctions on a user. So it appears that technically, Danko has not been placed under probation per administrator or arbitrator fiat. --ScienceApologist 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• However, the "mediator" in this case actually was an administrator. Sdirrim 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Is this correct:

BAN = 4 (Afshar, Drezet, Linas, dndn1011)

DO NOT BAN = 1 (Carl)

PROBATION = 2 (Art, ScienceApol)

(updated by Dndn1011 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

(reupdated due to vote withdrawal by sdirrim. --Carl A Looper 02:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

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

Disputed Piece #5

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

• "Afshar's experiment does not yield which way information and demonstrate interference effects for any individual particle (the photon), any more than the classic double slit experiment does, since we already know the photon propagates according to a wave-equation between the slits and any screen (i.e. behaves like a wave until it hits the screen, whereupon is observed as a particle.) The claim of complementarity violation in Afshar's experiment is a statistical argument that applies only to large numbers photons, not to individuals (cf "the particle" above in Bohr's statement is a reference to a single photon, not to groups of photons).

"To conclude, in spite of Afshar's claim we still need two experiments in order to exploit the totality of the phenomenon. As pointed out originally by Bohr, we can not use information associated with a same photon event to rebuild in a statistical way (i.e. by an accumulation of such events) the two complementary distributions of photons in the image plane and in the interference plane. The hypothesis of Afshar that we only need some partial information concerning the interference pattern in order to reconstruct the complete interference is only based on the idea that the fringes already exist. The whole reasoning is circular and for this reason misleading." - Aurelien Drezet

Sdirrim 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

(re-edited for comprehensibility)

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

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

But how is there no difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that this time we will succeed in finally wrestling this to the ground, especially as Sdirrim is doing a good job. I agree with you completely, also, that listing people at the end of the article would be appropriate. This article should simply state what the Afshar experiment is; what Afshar claims it shows; a few key *relevant* arguments to counter Afshar's claims (and only Afshar's claims, and only where attributible); rebuttles from Afshar (only where attributible) and links for further reading. Some of these things are not so clear to decide but I don't think it will be that hard as long as we stay focused.

An example of a difficult issue is the inclusion of Unruh's argument, which has not been published in a peer reviewed paper and additionally appears to not be relevant to the argument at all. Until Afshar's paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, it perhaps was relevant to include Unruh's argument. However this is no longer the case, and to have NPOV we should not have a peer reviewed article countered by an argument presented a few years ago on a blog, even if the personal presenting it is notable. There is of course nothing to prevent the article including links to Unruh's argument. Dndn1011 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi Michael, was wondering when you would show up again... I believe you are completely wrong in your interpretation, and in any way it is Afhsar's interpretation which is of importance here, not that of any editors. But here is a counter to your point that is directly connected to Afshar's interpretation, in a form that non-expert readers might find easy to digest: Some of the photons do yield both which-way and interference effects in the experiment. If 100 photons are measured as hitting the targets with the wires in place, it is known that statistically a certain percentage (I think it was around 7%) must have interfered with themselves in order to avoid the wires. So in fact 7% of photons do exhibit both which-way and interference effects. The only thing that is not known is precisely which photons of the 100 have done so. However, the paradox is exposed even without this knowledge. Since the paradox is exposed, BPC is violated, as we can no longer avoid concluding a paradox. Dndn1011 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument would apply equally without the wires: the photons must interfere with each other to produces the fringes, yet we can tell which-way they go by looking through the lens .... so what gives? The flaw (of course) is that no photon observed through the lens contributes to a fringe -- and this also applies when the wires are present. So no dice, I'm afraid. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again you present a different experiment to the one that we are discussing in thia article. Fringes do not form an important part of Afshar's experiment as I understand his experiment to be. You are not actually counterting my point at all. But in any case you need to get your interpretation published in a peer reviewed paper for it to get it included in the article. But a further point: since all photons are detected, then any photons contributing to a fringe would also be detected. Otherwise, what happens to your supposed photons that do contribute to a fringe? Do they just vanish or something? Dndn1011 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

An important difference is that, in the twin slit experiment, no which way information (or path function) can be postulated since each and every detection can be traced back to two apertures rather than one. But this is not the case in the Afshar experiment. Each and every detection, in the Afshar experiment, can only be traced back to a single aperture. It is this capacity (to trace paths back to a single aperture) that otherwise defines the path function as such, ie. as distinct from a (time reversed) wave function. So there we have the difference. For single photons neither experiment can demonstrate interference - but as Michael has previously argued "we already know single photons interfere". --Carl A Looper 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me -- I was referring to the Afshar experiment without wires, not the twin slit experiment which has no lens.--Michael C. Price ^talk 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you are misunderstanding me. I am talking about the Afshar experiment (which has wires) and the archetypal twin slit experiment (which doesn't have a lens). I am talking about your original argument - not this discussion you are having with dndn. --Carl A Looper 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed peice #6

I'm submitting the following for deletion:

• Niels Bohr stated "an adequate tool for a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[11]

If the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), how can Bohr's principle of complementarity be violated by the experiment?[13][14][15]

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

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

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

--Carl A Looper 04:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Carl's last paragraph here makes a lot more sense to me than the the way the article reads now. In the sense of being comprehensible, whether or not it is right. I think the distinction between BPC and HUP is essential to making sense out of the Afshar experiment and needs to be expounded in the article. The tricky part is either to make what we say attributable or at least to come to an agreement among the editors that our summary is accurate.

I vote for a qualified DELETE. This particular passage doesn't contribute much, but it needs to be replaced with something better. (Or the first bullet point in this section expanded.)

--Art Carlson 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

As Michael suggests elsewhere the formalism predates complementarity but this does not mean complementarity must be understood as only derivable from the formalism. It can also be regarded as expanding the formalism. The quote from Bohr does not provide enough information (despite Michael's claim) to suggest only Michaels reading is applicable. Consider the following sentence:

An adequate method for painting abstract art is offered precisely by a can of paint manipulated in the manner of Jackson Pollack.

To follow Michael's logic, we must conclude that abstract art can only be defined in terms of the way that Pollack painted. But this is not the case. There is implied in the statement, if not otherwise mentioned, other ways of producing abstract art. And the articulation of such other methods does not invalidate the above statement.

Note that the word "adequate" can be read as excluding not just "inadequate" but also "perfect".

The point is that we need more information about what Bohr said - not just isolated quotes - if the question is to be resolved. But Michaels' argument is that we don't need any more information - that the quote says it all. It doesn't.

--Carl A Looper 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your analogy fails because many artists would disagree with your reformulated statement, whereas physicists accept the validity of Bohr's statement. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Artists may disagree with the statement, and so to may scientists, eg. to copy Pollack is not to produce abstract art at all but to participate in Neo Abstract Expressionism (or form of postmodern art). But this is not the point of the analogy. The category "abstract art" or more specifically, "abstract expressionism" has a number of participants only one of which is Pollack. In other words Pollack's art does not define Abstract Art. It is the concept of Abstract Art which defines or otherwise categorises Pollack's art (amongst others) as an example of abstract expressionism. in similar fashion, it is Bohr who is categorising the formalism as a "complementary way of description". Furthermore the validity of the statement is not necessarily in question. And is not made any less so by the participation of other complementary ways of description. The point of the analogy, is that Bohr's statement does not rule out everything else Bohr has said in relation to complementarity. The issue is whether everything else Bohr has said confirms the meaning that Michael (and others) have otherwise extracted from the quote. But nowhere is this research demonstrated - a single quote is supposed to constitute the argument. And it doesn't. --Carl A Looper 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is (as you mention) that other people also interpret BPC in the same way I have. Since some of them are reliable sources this should be reported in the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

BPC is imposed on the formalism and not the other way around is completely wrong, and that's why the quote needs to stay. BPC in no way alters the formalism (the dynamics of the wave-equation) -- it's something that you derive from the formalism. Historically the formalism (e.g. Schrodinger wave-equation) came first, a decade or so later came complementarity. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please kindly answer the following questions with "yes" and "no" only: (1) Is HUP an integral part of QM? (2) Is it true that every time Bohr defended his arguments against Einstein he used HUP to show Einstein's errors? (3) Is it true that it was recently shown that HUP does not ALWAYS enforce BPC (theoretically suggested by Scully et al. and experimentally verified by Rempe et al)? (4) Is it not likely that those who made the claims in the disputed text (Motl, Unruh and others including yourself) were not aware of the distinction between HUP and BPC at the time? (I have direct evidence from the Blogs and Wiki archives that you did not know about the distinction before I brought it up.) P.S. Another important distinction that needs tobe made is the deterministic QM formalism on wavfunction Unitary evolution, and the quantum measurement theory involving the abrupt collapse of the wavefunction, but that's another bag of worms I'm writing an invited paper on for a pedagogical physics journal. -- Prof. Afshar 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, no; none of which contradicts or is relevant to the point I made: complementarity is derived from the formalism, not the formalism from complementary. Complementarity is not imposed on the formalism. What part of the wave-equation is altered by BPC???? --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Afshar's position is not that complementarity alters the formalism. On the contrary, no one in this discussion seems to question that the formalism always gives the correct result, in particular that the outcome of Afshar's experiment is consistent with the formalism. I think he is saying that BPC is derived from the formalism plus additional assumptions. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) --Art Carlson 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And what additional assumptions are those? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The assumption that you can not observe the paradox, if I understand correctly. Basically BPC is meant to allow us to avoid concluding a paradox. BPC becomes irelevant should an experiment allow us to observe the paradox. If it were logically impossible for an experiment to disprove the valididty of BPC, then BPC would not be falsifiable. However it can be seen that it is logically possible for an experiment to demonstrate a violation of BPC by simply demonstrating the precise paradox that BPC otherwise allows us to escape. The paradox in question is a photon passing through both holes to cause interference while also appearing to have come from only one hole. The statement being debated here has no relevance to Afshar's claims, because it is not actually stating anything that contributes to the argument. In fact, this statement suggests that violation of BPC would mean violation of the QM formalism, which it seems fairly apparently not to be the case. What is relevant is the question of whether Afshar's experiment does in fact demonstrate the paradox. If it does, then BPC is violated. This can happen and still leave the rest of the formalism intact, but incomplete. Dndn1011 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Art is completely correct in that I believe there are "additional" false assumptions that led to Bohr et al.'s error. The assumptions are: (i)NECESSITY for irreversible collapse/decoherence of the wavefucntion upon detection of the photon in ensemble spatial distributions such as the Interference pattern i.e. the need for destructive measurement for ensemble properties, and (ii) the NECESSITY for a collapse/decoherence to take place in order to make a measurement. In my experiments the wires make a classic measurement without a "quantum measurement"(i.e. the kind of measurement that causes the collapse of the wavefucntion) which I have termed "Contextual Null Measurement" (see my Perimeter Institute talk for more details.) The major assumption up until my experiment was that any kind of measurement causes either decoherence, or collapse of the wavefucntion. I have shown this assumption to be at variance with QM formalism (see section 3.3 of http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701027) and experimental results (all three published papers). -- Prof. Afshar 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, completely wrong: decoherence does not make the assumption of wavefunction collapse. Decoherence theory explains how the appearance of wavefunction collapse emerges from the formalism.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong, but hardly alone. It seems to be en vogue to believe that decoherence explains collapse. I think it doesn't (and I am willing to wager that Prof. Afshar agrees with me). But it doesn't matter what either of us believes. The important thing is to understand that there are (at least) two ways of looking at decoherence, so, if it is relevant to the article and they are attributable, we should report both of them. --Art Carlson 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Every one's entitled to their own belief when it comes to wavefunction collapse; what is clear, though, is that those researchers who worked on decoherence (such as Wojciech H. Zurek) developed it to explain collapse. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As a physicist, I see both HUP and BPC as convenient shorthand that becomes unuseable when push comes to shove. How can we resolve a bet of whether either concept is violated in an experiment? The only way is with a mathematical formulation where the deltas in the HUP are precisely defined and BPC is expressed in terms of the Greenberger-Yasin inequality. For this reason, the latter inequality needs to find its way back into the article, either in this section or another. --Art Carlson 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again I fully agree with Art. BTW/ it would be nice to change the name of the article on the duality relation to a more factual name as "Greenberger-Yasin inequality." I think Englert himself had voiced some conternation on that Wiki article. -- Prof. Afshar 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree the Greenberger-Yasin inequality should find it's way back into the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is quite depressing to see the state of confusion regarding collapse and decoherence. Decoherence is just that, loss of coherence in a wavefcuntion that leads to loss of interference effects and nulls in the off-diagonals. It is quite possible to have a collapse of the wavefunction in a coherent state, as you see when a photon is observed in a bright fringe. The wavefunction disappears completely (collapses) yet superposition state is observed in an irreversible manner. I think the confusion has been caused by two different uses of the term collapse. In short, collapse is not the same as decoherence. -- Prof. Afshar 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the level of confusion is quite depressing. The collapse of a coherent photon is still caused by decoherence -- the decoherence is present in the device that measures the photon. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

"In a lecture on that occasion, I advocated a point of view conveniently termed "complementarity," suited to embrace the characteristic features of individuality of quantum phenomena, and at the same time to clarify the peculiar aspects of the observational problem in this field of experience."

"For this purpose, it is decisive to recognise that, however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms."

"It must here be remembered that even in the indeterminacy relation we are dealing with an implication of the formalism which defies unambiguous expression in words suited to describe classical physical pictures."

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

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

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

Not too illuminating, unfortunately. On the basis of these statements alone, I can't discern if Bohr thought that complementarity is a consequence of the formalism or something additional to it. --Art Carlson 08:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not too illuminating, but it is indicative (without a full eassy) to get an idea. One should try to read the full account from which these quotes are extracted for a better idea. But in case one does not do this I'm hoping that give an idea. For example:

"It must here be remembered that even in the indeterminacy relation we are dealing with an implication of the formalism which defies unambiguous expression in words suited to describe classical physical pictures."

Note the phrase "... even in the indeterminacy relation ...", in which Bohr is citing such -ie. bringing it into the discussion, in order to show the difficultys involved in using classical concepts to describe the overall situation. But a classical (or semi-classical) account is what he is hoping to demonstrate is, at least, partially possible. He is arguing, in spite of the ambiguitys, (not becasue of them) that a semi-classical description is still possible. And it will be the principle of complementarity that will provide for this possibility. I am not saying this is evident in the pargaraph cited but I am encouraging anyone with questions here to actually read Bohr if they want to get the drift of what I'm saying here.

--Carl A Looper 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We should not remove or exclude material just because Bohr's statements are not crystal clear. It's the nature of QM and complementarity -- as Bohr observed -- to be confusing! --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does Bohr say QM is "confusing". The ambiguitys about which he is speaking concern the way in which aspects of QM can not be rendered in a classical manner - ie. in an unambiguous manner. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for "regularities beyond the grasp of such a description " :

"room for regularities beyond the grasp of such a description is just afforded by the circumstance that the study of the complementary phenomena demands mutually exclusive experimental arrangements." --Carl A Looper 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of Bohr's pronoucement that if you're not confused by QM you haven't understood it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only those those who claim to understand quantum physics who do not understand it. For example, those who misquote Bohr. I'd also add that those who want to be confused by QM will always be confused. Which one are you? --Carl A Looper 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How have I misquoted Bohr? --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bohr is not here to comment an Afshar's experiment, thus to include material from Bohr requires arguments to be presented that link the ideas of Bohr to the experiment's interpretation. However this can not be done in this article. To do so is to introduce original research. If Bohr were able to make comments on the experiment now, these comments, however unclear, would to attributable to him, so no problem. However the application of things Bohr said a long time ago to this experiment requires an interpretation by some third party. In this case that party is you Michael. This is also fine, providing such interpretation is attributable according to wikipedia policy. I suspect that you can not provide such attributable sources. Dndn1011 10:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, observe the statement by Bohr "For this purpose, it is decisive to recognise that, however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms.". This is key to understanding Bohr. What he is saying here is that it does not matter how much the nature of the universe transcends classical physical explanations (i.e. is an extension of classical interpretations), we must account for all evidence in classical terms. There is a major assumption. The assumption that any explanations of the nature of universe must be explained in terms of classical concepts. What if that assumption is wrong? And what is there to actually support this assumption? BPC was created to allow us to maintain this classical explanation without facing the which-way / interference paradox, because if we can not measure the paradox then it is not important. If Afshar's experiment allows us to measure the paradox then Bohr's argument falls apart. It is no longer possible to account for all evidence in classical terms. Dndn1011 10:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So, when I present statements from Bohr they are not admissible, but when you present statements from Bohr they are? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Er no, I am not trying to present statements from Bohr in the article. In this talk page we are both equally able to submit arguments about the article. It is your presentation of statements from Bohr both in the in the talk page and in the article I have countered with my own presentation of statements from Bohr in the talk page only. The purpose of me doing so is to get the presented statements from Bohr in the article removed for the reasons I have stated, i.e. Bohr may have said them but their application to this experiment represents OR. Additionally, there is no patently clear, unarguable case for making the connection, which I am attempting to demonstrate with my counter arguments in the talk page. I believe neither my arguments nor yours should appear in the article, but this discussion is never-the-less necessary in order to advance concenus on the article itself. I hope that clarifies everything. Dndn1011 11:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

AGREED Dndn1011 13:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

DISAGREE Wikipedia is not a democracy --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor is it a platform for every individual view. Dndn1011 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should debating the issues here, not performing a head count of people struggling to understand physics. The formalism of non-relativistic quantum mechanics was finished by c 1927. Complementary, c 1930+, was -- as Bohr said -- an attempt at a description of what the formalism models precisely. Complementarity's development had no impact or feedback onto the formalism. The HUP and other complementarity-related topics can be derived from the formalism; they are not required as separate, additional assumptions.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I think I am out of here. The only one who wanted to keep the reference is Price, and now you are ignoring the voice of the majority. Additionally you are telling me to stop fighting when I have only presented reasonable arguments. My faith in the mediator is now lost and I am frankly tired of this mess. By all means keep the irrelevant reference, and additionally if presenting well reasoned arguments in a non disrespectful way by me is suddenly to be called fighting, than I shall stop fighting by ceasing my contributions altogether. I have had enough. Dndn1011 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, improve not delete; reformulating the question as a statement is okay with me. The pertinent points are 1) what Bohr said 2) the formalism is obeyed by the experiment 3) what other people have said (such as Unruh) on the subject of the formalism and complementarity in the experiment. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you support including my rebuttals as well? If not, it would be a violation of NPOV. -- Prof. Afshar 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If your unpublished, unpeer-reviewed rebuttals are allowed then there can be no question that Unruh's, Motl's at al criticisms are also allowed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. A rebuttal is a response to someone e.g. Motl, Unruh, etc. If you put those quotations, then I should be able to respond, otherwise, neither their quotes, nor my rebuttal have any place in the article. Please clarify what you mean. Maybe Mediator can help here?-- Prof. Afshar 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the rebuttals need to be peer-reviewed and published -- otherwise we are opening the floodgates to OR. What is it to be? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Any material included in the article must be sourced. However, the rhetorical question is not directly sourced. Rather, it is a paraphrasing of a point made by Unruh (I believe), and thus is an "original analysis of published work" and is therefore OR. By Wikipedia guidelines, the quote needs to be removed. It may be replaced, but that is debatable. A counter-point sourced from a peer-reviewed and published work may also be included. But the rhetorical statement should be removed. Sdirrim 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The rhetorical question was my paraphrasing of Unruh's, Motl's etc, criticisms. My understanding is that paraphrasing counts as reporting and does not violate OR? If you agree then I will recast the question as a statement and we can debate the content. Do you agree that this is a way forward? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                       ...Danko Georgiev MD 10:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Afshar, I think we are not here to discuss the reputablity of journals. Did anybody ask you why you did not publish your work in Phys.Rev. or Eurphys. Lett. or Phys. Lett.? And as far as my publishing is concerned, I am not sure I want to publish in Found. Phys. too (unless there is dire need! ;-) ). As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a peer-reviewed journal is enough. -- Tabish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.224.81.1 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

• Dear Tabesh, "As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a peer-reviewed journal is enough." Not true! It depends on whether the "peers" are reliable. A journal that publishes papers that violate special relativity is a sure sign of the type of referees it has. Publication in this journal is also a clear indication of the type of author it attracts. No self-respecting physicist would even refer to "Progress in Physics" let alone publish there. And as to your desire not to publish in Found. Phys. all I can say is that you may have reason to stay away from the community of Nobel laureates; well I don't. -- Prof. Afshar 13:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Afshar, I had pointed out two papers, one of which "showed" a violation of the uncertainty principle, and the other "showed" the resolution of the quantum measurement problem. You seem to have conveniently forgotten where they were published.
  

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

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

       Stefan Marinov. The coordinate transformations of the absolute space-time theory 
       FOUNDATION OF PHYSICS 1979; 9(5-6): 445-460; DOI 10.1007/BF00708535
       ARTICLE
       
       Stefan Marinov. The light Doppler effect treated by absolute spacetime theory 
       FOUNDATION OF PHYSICS 1978; 8(7-8): 637-652; DOI 10.1007/BF00717587 
       ARTICLE 

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

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

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

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

But it is definitley Bohr who does suggest this.

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

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

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

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

You seem confused by what the formalism is. You don't need the BPC to generate empirical predictions from QM -- that's what the formalism is there to do. The BPC is there to help us grasp or understand what's going on in terms of classical or pseudo-classical concepts. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I am not confused by the formalism at all. I realise your recurrent fallback position (to fictionalise critics of your position as "confused") might seem entirely justified to you but repeatedly telling yourself this won't help you in the long run. The formalism itself represents the fundamental structure of signals otherwise implied in the data produced by actual experiments. It is given an "a priori" status by virtue of it's implicit fundamentalism. However the formalism does not, (and can not) embody the complete de-scription of an experiment. The formalism is a pre-scription. And as you say, you don't need BPC to pre-scribe the outcome of experiments - as that is the role of the formalism (it defines the formalism). The idea that BPC helps us to interpret the formalism is justified. But BPC is also MORE than this. It introduces ideas in addition to the formalism. And (with deep regret) I have argued in the past (if you go back through the history of this talk page) precisely something similar to what you are currently arguing - that Bohr is merely interpreting the formalism - in classical terms for an audience incapable of thinking in any other way. And that Heisenberg was doing the same thing. But on further reflection I found that this was not entirely justified - was not entirely true. In fact, could not be true at all. Bohr was not just a psuedo semi-classicist. He was a real one. If Bohr was aware that the formalism might impose limits on the very possibility of a post measurement classical path nowhere does he provide a warning in this respect. One would always find (incorrectly) that any actual setup which allowed a constructable post-measurement path function occured only in setups in which the wave function was prevented from being demonstrated. This is was not just a metaphor for the classical mind. It is (or was) supposed to be a fundamental principle, ie. a principle without exception. A precisely defined IDEA. And that IDEA is precisely what you find embodied in the Yasin Greenberger formula. --Carl A Looper 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carl, I said you were confused because you rhetorically asked me How does the Afshar experiment both violate the formalism (ie. the idea under challenge) and not violate the formalism?. The simple answer is that the experiment does not violate the formalism. As for what we are now calling the Yasin Greenberger formula, I have no problem with it being mentioned in the article; as I pointed out, each individual photon obeys the duality relation. It was Linas who saw fit to remove this statement from the article, not me. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok Michael, perhaps we are emerging from the deadlock in which we've been engaged. The simple answer, as you say, is that the experiment does not violate the formalism. That's exactly right. It is due to misunderstandings that the experiment has been framed this way - as if it was claiming to violate the formalism. The result has been ongoing inherent confusion - as embodied by my rhetorical question. But the experiment violates that aspect of complementarity otherwise embodied in the Yasin Greenberger formula. The YG formula itself is not at issue. The formula provides a precise mathematical definition of Bohr's IDEA. It is a formula anyone can derive from a close reading of Bohr. And it is this IDEA (Bohr's idea) which the Afshar experiment challenges. --Carl A Looper 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that we all seem to agree that the formalism is not violated in the experiment. Whether it also violates some aspect of complementarity is the crux of the claim which is disputed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Michael. As far as Prof Afshar goes, the formalism has never been in dispute - it is only the claim that complementarity and the formalism are equivilant that re-renders the formalism as in dispute. But who is providing that argument? Not Prof Afshar. You are. Or you have been. Or you want to. Basically, if your postulate was correct (that complementarity and the formalism are equivalent) then you would need to show how the formalism is violated by the Afshar experiment. Otherwise it is not the formalism being violated. It is something else - call it what you will - a figment of our collective imagination, but otherwise understood as derived from what Bohr has written. In the long run it doesn't even matter whether Bohr authored this idea or not. It is an idea that exists and is demonstrated, by the experiment, as a not very good idea. Irregardless of who authored it. However, the idea does not belong to me, you, Prof Afshar or anyone else. It is an idea that been floating around since Bohr wrote about his ideas - about a principle of complementarity. It has an existence in the realm of ideas and is (without an essay) merely stated here that Bohr invokes this idea in thost texts which otherwise constitute what we otherwise call Bohr's Principle of Complementarity. --Carl A Looper 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never said the formalism and BPC are equivalent. As for whether the experiment obeys the formalism: this has been questioned by other people, not me and perhaps not Afshar.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, ok then. Then vote for deletion of the rhetorical question. Because that is what is being implied by such - it is implying that an experiment which fails to violate the formalism, is an experiment which fails to violate complementarity. --Carl A Looper 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the implication stays because that is precisely the implication that Unruh and others are making. And correctly so, IMO. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You claim you've "never said that BPC and the formalism are equivalent" (see above). Ok. Then perhaps you should say so. Otherwise, how do you propose maintaining the claim (of yourself and others) that a failure to violate the formalism is equivalent with a failure to violate BPC? --Carl A Looper 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is basic logic: Formalism => complementary does not imply complementary => formalism.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right Michael. They do not commute. --Carl A Looper 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Equivalence (<=>) commutes, implication (=>) does not. The formalism and complementarity are not equivalent even though the formalism implies complementarity. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A useful analogy is the Aether. If an experiment claims to violate the concept of the Aether, the onus is not on the author of the experiment to demonstrate a violation of Relativity. The onus is on those who claim the Aether and Relativity are equivalent concepts. --Carl A Looper 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Paraphrasing of existing sources is not OR. As I said it is precisely the implication that Unruh and others are making. I agree that whether is it correct or not (although I believe it is) is irrelevant. And as I also previously said, I am happy to recast it in a non-rhetorical form. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If the counter-argument is to remain deleted then so too should Michael's argument. The counter-argument is no less derived from what Bohr has written than Michael's argument. --Carl A Looper 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Which counter-argument? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's one way of silencing the counter-argument. Postulate it's non existance. And I suppose we could interpret the debate here as just Michael entertaining an argument all by himself. And perhaps if I (and/or others) stopped responding to Michael's argument that would be the case. But Michael's argument is not a single voice in an otherwise silent universe. It is but one voice amongst many. Why is this vote still pending? Michael does not appear to have anything more substantial to argue in defense of his argument. Are we waiting for something of more significance to emerge in Michael's otherwise increasingly rhetorical contributions? --Carl A Looper 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're not going to tell me which counter-argument you're referring to? --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

?

The counter-argument can be argued as a postulate. The postulate is that: the formalism and complementarity are not interchangeable concepts. Now, being framed this way, as a postulate, it is not actually necessary for us to "believe" in it. We merely note that when we postulate this idea (ie. entertain it as correct) we are unable to maintain that a claim of BPC violation is interchangeable with a claim of formalism violation. And likewise, we can't maintain a claim that a failure to violate the formalism is interchangeable with a failure to violate complementarity. Keep in mind that this is just a logical result of the postulate.

But the real argument I've been putting forward is not this logic, as basic as it is. It is about what can be understood as BPC. Complementarity is not an implicit echo of the formalism. Bohr advances particular concepts under the name of "complementarity". And these are certainly interpretive but these concepts are not in any way ambiguous or a byproduct of the formalism. For example, in what way is the idea that "experiments must be defined classically" spring forth from the formalism? It doesn't. Yet is a central part of complementarity. Indeed, it is through experiments, defined classically, that the formalism itself becomes constructable in the first place. Or that's how Bohr can be understood. But even if this were not the case, (ie. postulating it the other way) then the reverse question remains. How does the formalism produce this idea? Or more specifically, since we're talking about BPC, how would you use Bohr to answer this question?

So simply put, on purely logical grounds there is a counter-argument. And on more substantial grounds - there is more to Bohr's complementarity than a mere echo of the formalism. And on the basis of both these propositions one can understand how BPC can be challenged without challenging the formalism. And that's before we've even challenged BPC!!! --Carl A Looper 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Exit Stage Left

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

Dear Dndn1011, please take a break instead of completely leaving. Wikipedia needs constant vigilance, and tonnes of patience. I know Price can be very difficult sometimes, but I cannot criticize him for expressing his views the best he can. I believe he is sincere albeit a little harsh at times. As far I can tell, he really sees things as he expresses them. Mediator, Dndn1011 has been making good progress here, and I would appreciate if you could call him back to participate in the editorial process. -- Prof. Afshar 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that Afshar is now assuming good faith; I have always assumed likewise of everybody here. It's a shame that Dndn1011 did not do likewise. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have always assumed likewise of everybody here" says MP. And then stabs dndn in the back. --Carl A Looper 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not stabbing in the back to point out that someone was not assuming good faith.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you won't mind if I reproduce here, your assumptions of "good faith" concerning Prof Afshar (in your previous contributions to the talk page). Not that I can speak, but then I don't go around claiming the moral high ground on this issue. --Carl A Looper 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to make a point, make it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about both of you discontinue this pointless and aggravating discussion? Neither of you are helping, and only serving to create further strife. Sdirrim 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Concern regarding Danko's increasingly worrisome behavior

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

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

• Can you suggest an admin? -- Prof. Afshar 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

OR tag

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

Afshar, as you know, you should not be making any edits to the article; as previously discussed, you are too close the subject. Ask here, by all means, but let others act.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Afshar's change. Aside from the personal involvement issue, shouldn't we making changes only with the mediator's approval? Isn't that what we all agreed awhile back? Making a change and then calling on the mediator to endorse is not really correct, for anyone. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Michael, in the absence of the Mediator, I would appreciate if you could "act" when it gets too stagnant. The article is misleading and needs to be corrected ASAP. There needs to be a timely and decisive Mediation process; otherwise errors linger on and responsible editors leave the discussion in the hands of OR pushers. Thanks. P.S. For the record, I only placed an OR warning tag, no other "changes" were made.-- Prof. Afshar 10:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No one disputes that "the article is misleading and needs to be corrected ASAP", but we all disagree about the remedy. Non-consenual changes are going to get us nowhere. I suggest patience and talking everything out, as we are currently doing. The stagnant nature of article is actually a good sign that we are using the talk page in preference to revert warring. P.S. yes the OR tag is only a little change, but an important one. Rather than single out any particular section, perhaps we should OR the whole article, since there is no agreement about which parts are particularly OR?--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael is right. We know that the article needs to be changed, we just argue about what needs to happen. How about another idea: We all focus on one change at a time. Address one issue, then move on, rather than arguing on 4, 5, 6, and Danko. It is easier for me to follow, and it will make a lot more sense. For the sake of easiness, how about we all focus on Piece 4, at the bottom of the talk page as reposted by Afshar? Sdirrim 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means let's tackle #4. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, If you and other editors want to delete huge portions of the article, I personally don't care, and even I will not vote against the suggested by you changes, as I have quited this discussion. However I have my ultimate human right to post on any page where I am allowed access, in cases where personal offences against me, or other people are posted with aim of derogating their basic human rights and human dignity. So I do not agree that my name is invoked in text passages containing insults, while at the same time I even did not participate in the discussion. So just two facts

        Georgiev D. D.
        Single Photon Experiments and Quantum Complementarity  ARTICLE 
         Progress In Physics 2007; 2: 97-103

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

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

I am sorry to report to you that the Marinov affair, and his tragic suicide as a direct result of his alienation by the mainstream academia is well-known. As much as I empathize with his difficult circumstances, working as a horse groomer and conducting experiments in his girlfriend's apartment, there is no question about the fact that he was firmly and correctly rebuffed by the academia and referees due to clear violations of the known physical laws he advocated. Indeed, feeling his pain, I shed tears over his heart-wrenching description of the rejections, while fully agree with the referees reasoning. None of what I have said is an insult, it is simply a recounting of the fact that such fully-rejected ideas have been published in the same journal you have published in; a journal whose editor believes there is scientific Mafia against him. Any reasonable person can draw his/her conclusions regarding the reliability of the publication (Progress in Physics) as regards OR in WIkipedia. -- Prof. Afshar 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

dear mr georgiev congratulation fo your paper even it is a sad day for physics (i will even not spend time to recuse such kind of argumentations). However i would like to mention that in principle you have absolutly no right for using a picture created by me ( see arxiv ) without asking me or at least without mentionning the source. You should know that in principle i could complain to the editor. Two solutions: 1) either you send kindly a message by your self to the editor to change the picture ( very difficult ) or to add my reference in the legend (easier), or, 2), I do it myself :this is less pleasant for you and for me. Please act promptly and explain yourself

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

Request to Mediator - Probation for Afshar

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

Please provide evidence for your accusation of personal insult by me while you have been on probation. You are the one who have called me "maniac", "charlatan", and predicted my "falldown," (while on probation mind you) projecting insult after insult without restraint. You seem to be incapable of carrying a civil discourse and I am not the kind of person who simply absorbs the kinds of antics you have been spewing on wiki pages, which has led to your current probation. Even my critics have chastised your despicable behavior. At any rate, the bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where objectivity is supposed to rule. You have posted OR in the article, using unreliable sources, and expect no one to react? That's an impossible proposition. Please respect the terms of your probation which you have now broken. Mediator please kindly take action by removing the OR from the article. Thank you.-- Prof. Afshar 06:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not used "maniac", and "charlatan", during the probation period you talk. So you post false statement in order to derogate me. Several false statements about other scientists has been posted by you also - prof. Smarandache is not blacklisted by ArXiv, as you can see all his recent uploads from Feb 2007. And Here is the evidence that you have insulted me, while I was not been involved in the discussion.

Removed vandalism by a crackpot

Disreputable journal

Regression in Physics

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

• Sorry Danko, but you won't be getting off that easy this time. You say: "I have not used "maniac", and "charlatan", during the probation period you talk.": Well, thank you for being so kind as to have resisted your urge to call me those derogatory names while on probation, however, you conveniently disregard the fact that only "falldown" was qualified with the parentheses "(while on probation mind you)". As for Smarandache, he himself states that he has been blacklisted from the arxiv for submitting physics papers, while talking about the scientific "Mafia." "Removed vandalism by a crackpot": That is the Edit summary for your vandalism of my userpage, in which you have attacked New Scientist, one of the most respected popular science magazines in the world as "NEW PROPAGANDA", and predicted my "falldown." You tell me what kind of person makes such statements while on probation. "Disreputable journal" That is a correct assessment of the reputation of the journal "Progress in Physics," and for the well-referenced reasons described above I will stand by that. "Regression in Physics" is an Edit summary for an edit describing the same journal, simply pointing out that trusting such a source as reliable would indeed constitute a "Regression in Physics," and I still stand by that as well. None of the above even compares to your direct attacks and use of foul language by you on my person. I do not wish to attack your personality, although you seem to be doing a good job at it yourself; and for all to see. P.S. I refrained from naming names in the recent NS interview article of the individuals who have personally attacked me, however, I may not be as reserved the next time around. Waiting for Mediator to enforce Dnako's probation, until then I will defend myself against his typically baseless accusations here... -- Prof. Afshar 08:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no formal authority to "enforce" anything. I am trying to keep up as best as I can, but as the sayong goes, NEHAMFTAY (Not Everyone Has As Much Free Time As You). Nor do I always have free time at the same time as you. Thus, you may see me respond in bursts: I answer a question, you ask another, and open another section, and 5 questions are unanswered, then suddenly I reappear and try to answer all five at once, then I disappear again. I will try to get this matter referred to an admi, but you should also take some action. It is any Wikipedian's prerogative to request the intervention of an admin. Sdirrim 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to Mediator - get moving!

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

I do not agree. Hasty action will only waste time, as the history of this article shows. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might see it that way. I am advocating "timely" rather than "hasty" action. --Art Carlson 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I interpreted "bold" as "hasty". --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted "bold" as actually implementing votes, and enforcing probation by asking the violator to cease and desist or be reported to admins. -- Prof. Afshar 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And as I said earlier, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Debate the issues. You demanded that I answer some questions with a simple yes/no. Please reciprocate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Formalism

Do we all agree that

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

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

• Dear Michael, let's concentrate on the issue at hand with the obvious OR and kindly vote below. We can discuss the subtleties of your statements above after Disputed piece #4 the voting on which was aborted due to Danko's interference has been implemented. Let's wait for the Mediator to catch up. Thanks.-- Prof. Afshar 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am trying to concentrate on the issues at hand. The points I have isolated have relevance to the most of the disputed texts. Trying to tackle the disputed text sentence by sentence does not seem to be working -- I think we need to establish some general points first. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• The most obvious point at the movement is the fact that "There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons" and the related text below it are OR. Do you disagree? The action is simple removal of the OR text rather than the lengthy process of concocting new statements etc. which your suggested discussion would require. Please simply vote below on Disputed text #4. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done, now please reciprocate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys talk about this later? Things would go a lot faster if we brought up and addressed one change at a time, rather than arguing the theory behind this experiment? I know that it is relevant to a lot of the changes, but if we can deal with the OR first, and even then do things one at a time, we can get things done. Sdirrim 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are not making much progress on the one-at-a-time front because there is so much confusion about the physics. Whether something is OR (i.e. whether a statement is correctly paraphrased) is often a matter of understanding the physics as well. If we can find statements that Afshar and myself (representing the two poles) agree on then we can work from there -- perhaps. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

--

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

--

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

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

• Michael, I think (in fact I'm sure) you are confusing the OR issue. Danko, Tabish and Reitzner are saying that There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons. Don't you consider this statement OR?! If you don't, then we have a very serious problem. The text above that bold line, where Unruh's view is directly referenced to his own web-page are not being discussed right now. Please tell me how you can reword the bold quote above to make it acceptable. I will respond to your formalism issue after we settle this #4 OR problem. Kindly reconsider your vote in light of the above.-- Prof. Afshar 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be more likely to answer the OR issue if the statement was more accurately sourced. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Danko posted it. That's your source.-- Prof. Afshar 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I must confess I had not closely examined this text before, but now that I have examined it, I see that it is not OR and correctly summarises the following statements by Danko, Tabish, Daniel etc..... It could be clarified a bit: I would rephrase it as: There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup. Whether I agree with the statement is another matter, but that is irrelevant; we are here to report, not judge. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, still you seem a little careless (helpfully not deliberately), and apparently you have not yet fully realized what Danko, Qureshi, and Dereitzer (DQD) are saying. Also, you should be careful in your suggested statement above when you mention "Afshar's setup" as to which particular setup you are referring. I have one setup (Fig. 2 in the Wiki article) with the wires in the path of the light (this is unique to my experiment but is not being discussed by DQD) and another one without the wires (shown in Fig.1 which is the same exact setup as that of Wheeler's and is the subject of DQD’s assertions). Therefore it is not just my setup in which they claim there is no which-way information. They claim in any welcher weg experiment in which the coherent beams cross each other there is no which way information. This includes Wheeler's as well as various other investigators' setups. This assertion is clearly stated by Danko in the past over and over, and is mentioned directly in Qureshi's manuscript: "The beams cross and there after the detectors DA and DB collect the photons. Interestingly, Wheeler assumes that when the two beams cross uninterrupted, the detectors DA and DB give the which path information. From our preceding analysis it is clear that if there is interference in the crossing region, the two detectors no longer give the which-path information." So as you can see he is also nullifying Wheeler's setup, the details of which were clearly delineated in his seminal papers on the subject: J. A. Wheeler, in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, A. R. Marlow, Ed. (Academic Press. 1978); ibid, in: Some Strangeness in the Proportion, H. Woolf, Ed. (Addison-Wesley Pulishing Compony, Inc, New Jersey, 1980). The bottom line here is that they are invalidating the accepted which-way by momentum conservation argument that dates back to Einstein himself and has been discussed by innumerable investigators from Wheeler down to Griffiths, Scully and others, all of which have reputable references, and some of which (about 16 ref.s ) have been mentioned in my papers. Unless they publish their ideas on the nullification of the long-held view on presnece of which way information in the setup shown in Fig. 1 in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, this statement (There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup even if there is no wire grid put on the path of photons.) and its sources must be considered OR and removed from the article. -- Prof. Afshar 00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)