Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 28

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)

Dear Drezet, I hope the issue is resolved, so you post new message in confirmation that the confusion is resolved. I have NOT used your arXiv figure, I have used figure from WIKIPEDIA released under GNU free documentation license, so I have even modified the graphics under GFDL. You have agreed to this when releasing your image in Wikipedia, so I can refer to the GFDL licence even without asking you for permission. One can use Wikipedia under GFDL without asking permission any of the contributors to Wikipedia, as they have agreed to the Wiki-policy they have released their work for free, and also for merciless editing by others. One when releasing something in Wikipedia, cannot after that blame that others have modified and used in certain way his release without asking him, this is Wiki-policy so if one does not like, then he does not contribute to Wikipedia. Kind Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:38, 26 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)

I must disagree. OR, unlike groundbraking physics, has a set of definitions, and is relatively clear-cut. Furthermore, OR in the article causes accusations of bias, inappropriate refences and confusion. Therefore, I propose this. Since we are all capable of remaining reasonable in a discussion, we remove the obvious examples of OR. Then, once the "dead wood" is removed, we can begin on balancing the article with well-referenced, agreed-upon material. Sdirrim 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a genius to realise that Afshar repeatedly refuses to debate about the formalism-complementarity relationship because of the lack of any substantive input on his part on the subject. Further, since the sources here are universally regarded as valid (e.g. Bohr, Unruh), I presume we can close the chapter in this. I'll knock out a new version, with the rhetorical question rephrased, shortly for review here.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I wish to discuss this issue after we resolve OR in #4 below. The Meiadtor recommended as much, and if you wish to change the text you may force and edit war. I humbly request that you refrain from taking unilateral actions. The formalism debate would take a long time for us to resolve, whereas the OR in #4 is easy to resolve if only you respond to my questions below. What hope do I have that you would be reasonable on the formalism debate, if you resist making progress on #4? Are you going to force an edit war? Mediator please get involved ASAP. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no dice, this as just a way of procrastinating indefinitely on issues you wish to avoid. Anyway, you don't have to debate the physics here, I have reformulated Bohr-on-formalism so that there is only one link sentence between Bohr's original statement and those of modern commmentators on Afshar's experiment:

Proposed text start:

• Niels Bohr stated "a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"

In this view, since the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), they can be described by Bohr's principle of complementarity. Cf:

• "I think Bohr would have had no problem whatsoever with this experiment within his interpretation. Nor would any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is simply another manifestation of the admittedly strange, but utterly comprehensible (it can be calculated with exquisite precision), nature of quantum mechanics."
• "There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Afshar's experiment. [....] And of course, the conventional quantum mechanics is compatible with the principle of complementarity."
• "It was claimed that this experiment could be interpreted as a demonstration of a violation of the principle of complementarity in quantum mechanics. Instead, it is shown here that it can be understood in terms of classical wave optics and the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics."

Proposed text end. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Followups to "Disputed peice #6" (sic) --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree with the last proposition. Bohr regarded the formalism as a "complementary way of description". He also regarded many OTHER THINGS as a "complementary way of description" and refers to such OTHER THINGS in his discussions of complementarity. The formalism is but one example ie. amongst others. Can MP try to read beyond just one sentence in Bohr's writings. That one sentence will become more understandable if he does. --Carl A Looper 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bohr saw complementarity everywhere, in politics, philosophy, art etc (e.g. truth and clarity he regarded as complementary). We are only interested in his views about complementarity in QM.--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. We're only interested in how complementarity applys to physics. To do so we must begin with a full picture of complementarity (philosophy, art, politics, language, information), ie. as articulated by Bohr, and test which aspects of complementarity (if any) are workable in terms of experimental physics. Only in this way are we speaking about Bohr's principle. --Carl A Looper 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I add that the concept of space and time has undergone a similar evolution. These concepts existed (within language, politics, philosophy etc.) for a very long time (thousands of years) and were given a priori status, and physics used these concepts for a very long time, until Einstein showed the concepts (as they existed) were a problem (required revision). The physical universe (we can assume) did not change as a result of this revision. And furthermore, we destroy history if we pretend that our ancestor's were really talking about Einstein's spacetime rather than their own. And we will run into problems doing this. If we do an experiment to challenge Newton's spacetime, but define Newton's spacetime as Einstein's spacetime, we'll just end up proving that Newton's spacetime is correct. --Carl A Looper 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the improving the article: if you think I have incorrectly represented Bohr's views on the relationship between complementarity and the formalism, in QM, then find another quote -- anything else is OR.--Michael C. Price ^talk 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A good improvement will be to remove your interpretation of Bohr's quote. The quote is fine, but the interpretation you bring to it is OR, just as my interpretation of Bohr is OR. The quote does nothing to substantiate your claim as any more correct than mine (or anyone elses). Of course, I consider my interpretation as correct and yours as "confused", but I can understand you might see it the other way around. But just because you think I'm confused doesn't make it so. And, of course, vice versa. But you seem to be running around trying to prop up your miscellaneous statements using ever increasing speculative means. I particularly like your one in which fundamental aspects of BPC should be be attributed to Ehrenfest on the basis that Bohr and he knew each other. --Carl A Looper 21:55, 19 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 DQD publish their ideas on 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. P.S. You say "we are here to report, not judge." I disagree, the whole purpose of this Mediation is to establish what is and isn't OR according to Wiki rules. Therefore we are compelled to judge whether a source is reliable or not. -- Prof. Afshar 00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• You're changing the subject, which was whether the statement was OR and how could it be improved. It was not OR and I have improved it. End of discussion. If you are now ready for a more general discussion of the physics then please answer my questions about the formalism. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Look Michael, I know you occasionally enjoy yanking my chain, but come on, this is serious, how am I changing the subject? Did you even read my response? You did not tell me which setup you were talking about. How did you establish that the DQD statement is not OR? I provided reputable peer-reviewed references for the opposite view at length above. Did you provide similarly reputable references for the DQD statement? "End of discussion": why, because you say so?! "If you are now ready for a more general discussion of the physics" (i) the current issue has not been resolved, (ii) as you have mentioned yourself before, Wikipeida is not the place for such general discussions. Everything you say here must be based on direct quotes from reputable sources with the aim of improving the article. You and I can have e-mail correspondence on topics of interest on a parallel track, but I do not see any reason to fill the pages of this discussion page with weblog material. Mediator, please note that Michael has not produced a evidence that the disputed section is not OR. I wish other editors to engage in this issue as well. If there are no other editors that can attribute reputable sources to the DQD statement I would appreciate if the Mediator removes them from the text. -- Prof. Afshar 14:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The statement in question There is no which-way information in Afshar's setup. is not OR because it correctly summarises the following 3 statements which are sourced. Yes, we can have a debate about whether they are reputable, reliable or not, but that is tangential to the issue of whether it is OR or not, which is the title of this section. I am not engaging with the physics here because (i) that is strictly speaking irrelevant (although I'll grant we all know the OR rule is honoured more in the breach than observance across Wikipedia). (ii) you refuse to engage with the critical formalism issues I have highlighted in another section. Reciprocate please. And I asked first :-) PS as for which setup is commented on, it seems the sources are talking about both (i.e. with and without the wires), hence my suggested removal of the adjunct about the wires.--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• "...it seems the sources are talking about both (i.e. with and without the wires)" Well, if you look at the Specific critiques section in the article, it has been devided into two distinct groups. The top group comprising of references to papers by academic physcists Unruh, Motl, Kastner, Drezet, and Steuernagel only talks about the lack of which-way information in the presence of the wires (what can be properly called my experiment) , and all of them agree that which-way information is reliable when there are no wires (i.e. in Wheeler's original setup). The second group, which relates to DQD ref.s deny the presence of the which-way information even when there are no wires (again i.e. in Wheeler's original setup). It is this second group that needs to be removed because their main thesis as described by Danko in the article is OR. Although I disdain Danko's antics, I must say however, he is at least clear cut on what his main thesis is. All I'm suggesting is that the second group that has no reliable sources for their argument be removed. Otherwise, keeping them on the article gives the non-expert reader that the false impression that the OR presented in their papers is accepted in the mainstream physics community. Unruh himself wrote to me and Danko and publicly denounced their thesis. I can post his remarks if you wish. P.S. If we cannot come to an agreement on this simple issue, how well do you think we can do regarding the formalism topic? We need to address this clear case of OR vs. reputable sources and resolve it first before we move on to more thorny issues. -- Prof. Afshar 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, Wheeler probably did not consider the possibility of interference in the region where the beams cross, so, the issue of losing which-way information did not occur to him. You can ask him now, what he feels about it.
And since you mentioned the "well established momentum conservation", can you please explain here how momentum conservation in your eperiment works, when the initial state is a superposition of two momentum states?
And please do not raise the issue of OR to extreme levels - you will see my paper in a peer reviewed journal soon.
Just remember that you are claiming that the long established Complementarity has been violated, whereas I am saying it CANNOT be violated. --Tabish q 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Tabish, you say "Wheeler probably did not consider the possibility of interference in the region where the beams cross", I think you greatly underestimate Prof. Wheeler's immense insights on this topic. You seem to be unaware of the fact that he published two papers (J. A. Wheeler, in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, A. R. Marlow, Ed. (Academic Press. 1978); in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, H. Woolf, Ed. (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc, New Jersey, 1980), in which he discussed exactly the crossed beam scenario. I conducted an experiment using his setup shown in Fig. 1 of my AIP paper http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701039. Here's a depiction of Wheeler's crossed beam experimentand the brief reasoning involving the conservation laws. He discusses his analysis of the setup in his papers in much detail. "You can ask him now, what he feels about it." Indeed I had the honor of discussing his suggested experiments 6 years ago, during which he reiterated the conservation laws as the reasoning for which-way information and pointed out that Einstein himself used that same argument with Bohr, especially during the EPR debates. "Just remember that you are claiming that the long established Complementarity has been violated, whereas I am saying it CANNOT be violated." Well, while I'm questioning the validity of Complementarity which is not central to QM formalism, you defend Complementarity by violating the conservation laws at the very heart of QM. The conservation laws are inviolable and anyone who suggests otherwise would not be take seriously by the mainstream physics community, thus I highly doubt any respectable peer-reviewed journal would ever publish your claims. P.S. Please do not use line breaks in your text, as it takes more space, and makes it more difficult to follow your argument. Looking forward to hearing your response. -- Prof. Afshar 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming that momentum conservation gives you the which-path information. Let us suppose that detector 1 detects photons with momentum |p1> and detector 2 detects photon with momentum |p2>. Suppose you detect a photon at detector 1 - you would conclude that it came from slit 1 and the initial momentum was |p1>. But this can only happen if slit 2 is closed. If both the slits are open, the initial state is something like |p1>+|p2>. And just before hitting any detector the state is again close to |p1>+|p2>, which says that momentum conservation is there. However, on hitting the detector, a superposition like |p1>+|p2> will go into sometimes |p1>, and sometimes |p2>. All that momentum conservation can tell you here is that the detectors 1 and 2 will click an equal number of times on the average, nothing more!
IF the particle was prepared in state |p1> and u detect it with momentum |p1>, it can give you a which-way information - that happens when only one slit is open. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tabish q (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Fantastic. Now I'd like to ask you a few more questions based on your own argument above. (1) As the wavfunctions emerge from the two pinholes I right the initial state as |p1>+|p2> right? Now let the states (that are not spatially overlapped) evolve unitarily for a little while just enough to clear the pinholes (say move about 1cm from the pinholes). They are still spatially non-overlapping. (2) If I observe a photon in the beam emerging from pinhole 1 the superposition |p1>+|p2> would collapse and I would find its state to be |p1> (similarly for pinhole 2) do you agree? (3) Would it be possible to find the photon in beam 1 to have momentum state |p2>? If so, please explain how using QM formalism. BTW/ If you could show this, you would win my $1000 prize I announced 3 years ago, so it’d be worth your time to respond!--Prof. Afshar 17:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The scenario before the beams cross and after the beams cross is different. Before the beams cross, there is no interferemce, so no problem with which-way information. Quantum mechanically I had already shown you something before, which u did not respond to.$psi(x)=a\exp(ikx)+b\exp(-ikx)$, here the two terms represents waves with opposite momenta. Now, some parts of the two waves cancel with each other, and some parts add to each other. Let me decompose them into that for you $psi(x)=a[\cos(ikx)+i\sin(kx)]+b[\cos(kx)-i\sin(kx)]$. For a=b, the sin(kx) terms would cancel and the cos(kx) terms would add up. After interference, you will be left with $psi(x)=2\cos(kx)=\exp(ikx)+\exp(-ikx)$, which is two waves moving in opposite direction. But these two waves individually do not carry any which way information.
All photons emerge from the bright fringes. Bright fringes are formed by portions of the states from the two slits which are identical. Orthogonal states cannot be added to give a bright fringe. As the contribution from teh two slits is identical, there is no which-way information. Is that enough for you? --Tabish q 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE - on the basis that such is OR. I would still like to see the papers listed somewhere - but without the paraphrasing, quotes, etc. But in the meantime I vote delete. --Carl A Looper 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that the voting mechanism is just the second last step (step d) in the following rational solution to the problems of editing the article. If the voting mechanism fails we have only step e remaining. Voting has never been the primary solution. But due to demonstrated unilateral behaviour on behalf of non-negotiable editors it is the only remaining rational way of avoiding an edit war.

a. debate (in the talk pages)

b. consensus amongst editors

c. else, present each differing argument,

d. else, vote on what is presented

e. else, act unilaterally (edit war)

--Carl A Looper 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, please reply what is your argument that suggests: [1] Bohr's published work is wrong, and [2] Wheeler's published work is correct. It seems that it is quite possible that Wheeler has made overlook, so You are wrong and Bohr is correct. What is your scientific argumentation that helps us to decide which one of these notable physisits is wrong. I believe if one of them must be wrong, then providing citations will not help. I think that Tabish is correct to point of math formulas, which in this case must be of greater value than citations of literature. Mathematics is superior to everything else called science, so please reply also by writing some equations. I believe some of the other wiki-editors will be good enough in verifying the written math by you. Danko Georgiev MD 07:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics is superior to everything else called science.... and Danko is its prophetDrezet 08:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic, or do you really mean that? Please clarify. Sdirrim 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

please all :sorry indeed it was a sarcasm but i felt better after Drezet 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, decision made. I have reviewed all of the evidence shown on this talk page. If I may say so, there is nothing original in the arguments in this section. First off, I don't care what the mathematics are. Just because you can provide partial equations to prove your point (and this goes for everyone here) does not mean that you are free to ignore wikipedia guidelines. We have all debated this. The sources that are being referenced by the text in question have been deemed "questionable" and/or "unreliable". This is on account of the lack of mandatory peer-review before release to the general public.

Now, I can forsee "But it has a process where A and B, so C and it is effectively peer-reviewed..." BOTTOM LINE: ArXiv has been deemed not to be a reliable source. Anyone is free to retain the text elsewhere, post a blog about it, put it in a scientific journal, whatever. But not on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a place to determine who is correct, and then to post that person's ideas. It is a place to post neutral information about a wide variety of subjects gathered from reliable sources. Not to argue who is right. Should people who follow Intelligent Design (or Evolution) be able to make edits to the Evolution (or Intelligent Design) article, on the basis that they believe that they are right? No. Should the same people be able to make edits to the same article strictly on the basis of removing unsourced information and unreliable sources? Yes (Unfortunately, things don't always work that way).

If you wish to alter the basic foundations of the topic on which this article is written, get yourself published in a reliable, peer-reviewed publication, and then put that reliable reference in the article. But until then, don't go changin the article on the basis of "math proves me right, I don't need to listen to Wikipedia guidelines".

Overall, I believe that everyone has shown Disputed Text #4 to lack a reliable source as a reference. Therefore, it should be removed as a matter of policy. It may be replaced with text that has a reliable source, and anyone is free to save the current text of the article to have a template to work from once a reliable source is found. Sdirrim 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, by this logic you will have to remove all the criticism from the page - none of it is published yet. Unruh's is not even an ArXiv paper. But then you will end up making this article a mouthpiece of a work which is not published in a mainstream journal, and is not accepted by the majority physics community. There are reasons why Afshar's work could not be published in any of the mainstream journals like Physical Review and Europhysics letters, where works novel in nature are published, although it claims to be most novel. --Tabish q 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I do realize that neutrality should be maintained. NPOV doesn't excuse the inclusion of 'unrealiable sources'.

However, after reviewing Wikipedia's policies, absolute sources are not necessary for "Criticism" sections, in this article being Specific Critiques and Ongoing Debate. While ArXiv isn't a reliable source for scientific fact, I would consider it to be acceptable to demonstrate that a certain person expresses a certain viewpoint. The reason we do not need the same level of attribution is that we are stating the "critiques" and "debate" as opinions on the experiment, rather than definite fact. Non-peer-reviewed papers are acceptable sources for things such as "So-and-so has stated such-and-such" but not statements of fact. Sdirrim 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of this type of patently wrong OR even in the criticism section is unacceptable. Even if you attribute it to some group (especially if they are not notable), and if their source is unreliable, it nonetheless promotes that argument to a level of legitimacy within the article. It is like saying that in an article on 2+2=4, someone has written a paper that says 1+2=4 and therefore 2+2=5 as a criticism. Such an argument is OR and cannot be used even in the section on a criticism for the article on 2+2=4. The violation of the conservation laws suggested by DQD has been pointed out as absolute nonsense by Prof. Unruh himself even though he is a critic of my work. Let's not mix legitimate critiques with utter nonsense by armatures in the field. -- Prof. Afshar 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is why we have the concept of "weight" in an article. Minority views need not be given the same weight as the standard view, but they sould still be included or at least mentioned. Viewpoints attributed to tiny minority groups need not be mentioned at all (although you are free to do so). Sdirrim 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed the DQD is a minority view (only 3 people!) which has not even been published in a reputable journal. How exactly are you going to keep their text in and convey the point that nobody else (among experts) considers their work worthy of a discussion let alone publication. If you wish I can share with you Prof. Unruh's private comments regarding Danko and his claims here. -- Prof. Afshar 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar my work has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, Progress In Physics 2007; 2: 97-103. I guess however that any journal that publishes disproval of your views you will call it not reputable. Also I do NOT propose violations of conservations laws. As it was explained clearly to you by Tabish, the argument proposed does NOT violate concervation laws, simply after interference, each slit wavefunction evolves into superposition of two waves each with opposite momentum. As far as the final outcome is 50/50 no violation of conservation laws has been done by us. Just the which way information is gone. Danko Georgiev MD 06:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Danko, please stop advertising your "publication" here. We all know the reputation (or lack thereof) of the journal where you published. Suffice it to say it is a journal the editor of which is banned from posting physics papers on arXiv, believes in a science "Mafia" out there to get him, and promotes publication of papers on violations of special relativity, etc., This same journal has now aptly published another blatant violation of physical laws suggested by your paper. Nice fit indeed. P.S. You are still in probation right?!-- Prof. Afshar 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, Danko's paper should be treated as a reliable source, as it is published in a peer reviewed journal. This journal is also listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, which has a criterion of subject and quality control to be included in the list. Unless of course, you need a stamp of approval from Afshar for every journal. Papers of both Afshar and Danko have been published after undergoing peer review. We may disagree on which journals maintain higher academic standards, but that is not for people to decide on wikipedia discussion. --Tabish q 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone can (and Tabish should) understand the difference between a journal with Nobel Laureates as its editors (Foundations of Physics), and a journal with paranoid editors, fearing the manistream "Mafia" out there (Progress in Physics). Get real, a journal that charges its authors, and claims legitimacy in its first line of intorduction with a statement like "Progress in Physics is a quarterly issue American scientific journal registered with the Library of Congress (DC)" is sorely aware of its stumpy ranking amongst legitimate journals. Last time I checked with the Library of Congress, they said ANYONE could register ANYTHING (one's own diary, a child's drawing, etc.) for $30! Enough said--thought the above is just the tip of the iceberg. -- Prof. Afshar 15:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tabish, although I understand your point, I find it personally offensive. I am trying to remain neutral, and I do not always agree with Afshar. Regardless of any similarities between our views, I do not require "Afshar's stamp of approval", nor am I a sockpuppet. I was not aware that the papers that have been referred to were published on anything besides ArXiv. No one even mentioned it. The only discussion was whether ArXiv counted as a reliable source. In addition, the papers that you refer to are not referenced in the article. If you wish to include a paper in the article, refer to it as it is in whatever peer-reviewed journal it was published in. Sdirrim 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Most reputable journal of high standards require tax for the processing of the manuscripts and for printing. PNAS is quite famous journal, and you can see the high taxes here PNAS:page taxes. Of course there are much more reputable journals that require higher taxes, and sell their content - do not release it free. Progress In Physics releases all his papers for open access, therefore the taxes are not for profit. Compare PNAS killing taxes, and then tell us which journal is good, and which not good. Danko Georgiev MD 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparing PNAS with PP? That's an insult. PNAS is a high quality print publication by the best American scholars (mostly in biological sciences), widely read and highly respected. It asks its usually well-funded authors to pitch in IF THEY CAN. As for PP, well, as a colleague mentioned it's not worth the paper it's published on. In fact most physicists would not even look at it even if they were paid to do so. I must say though, with the addition of your paper to PP, I consider it "mission accomplished". -- Prof. Afshar 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mediator, please act upon the decision to remove the OR dicussed in the Disputed text #4. Thanks.-- Prof. Afshar 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, did you yourself made the final decision? As far as I can see the votes are 2-1 Qureshi, Georgiev vs. Afshar, concerning Carl's comment I was not sure how to classify it, does Carl also think Progress in Physics as not being reputable peer-reviewed journal, as so far I see this is only your personal Afshar's opinion? Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)