Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 25

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)