Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 26

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)