Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Why Afshar is allowed to bring any topic he likes???

Dear Mediator, please answer to this question. Why you tolerate the fact that any topic Afshar thinks suitable for this discussion must be allowed, and all his complaints of what others are discussing, should be satisfied. What is the relevance between the newly bringed by Afshar stuff on prof. Smarandache, the mafia, the arXiv blacklistings, the page taxes, etc., and Afshar's article? Why noone objects Afshar and warns him to stop? Can't everyone see that all this is irrelevant to this discussion, and that Afshar provokes, by insulting people. I am being constantly involved to reply because Afshar insults someone. Afshar please stop! And let someone [the mediator] explain to Afshar that the no personal attack is valid for all participants. Thanks. Danko Georgiev MD 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, please don't mention my name, and you will not see me in the future on any page where you are having a discussion. If you don't like me, please don't contact me, and do not adress messages to me. Danko Georgiev MD 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Everything I have said is based on cited sources, and directly relevant to the evaluation debate on reliability of sources for material used in the article. "Afshar, please don't mention my name" Rest assured I derive no pleasure from mentioning your name, however, I will expose lies, vandalism, OR and any other unsavory behavior by you to as many individuals and authorities as necessary, as long as you perpetrate them (without even once apologizing for any of them.) You've certainly got some cheek to come back here after all the despicable insults you've lobbed on my person, and being put on probations which you've broken time after time. Goodbye. -- Prof. Afshar 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, don't offend others, as you see this is not good way to lead a discussion. The fact that you are author of Afshar's experiment is understandable, yet this does not give you rights to behave as if this article is under your possesion. Indeed good Wikipedia advice is that you leave others edit the article that discusses your work. You can never be neutral for your own work, that is why noone in the court is allowed to be judge of his own relatives if prosecution has been made. Danko Georgiev MD 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...I'll stay out of this. Sdirrim 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute pieces 5,6

Disputed pieces 5 and 6, according to the vote, either require deletion or, if not, then the votes are meaningless - and I will be putting back the counter-arguments (in the Ongoing Debate section) as these were deleted under the same meaningless vote.

--Carl A Looper 02:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Votes are, by Wiki policy, meaningless. Follow the guidelines. #6 is especially well sourced and it not OR -- it is a paraphrasing of what Bohr said about complementarity in general and what some modern commentators have said about complementarity in Afshar's experiment specifically.--Michael C. Price ^talk 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Michael. I'm not proposing deletion of your mangled contribution. I'm proposing putting back the well sourced counter-argument - and by well sourced I mean your source - Bohr himself. Consider Bohr's words "interference effect". By "interference effect" Bohr is referring to that which is recorded on a photographic plate - not those virtual interference patterns we might otherwise hallucinate as "already there". The single photons to which Bohr refers are theoretical particles. We can only appreciate such individual particles in theory. We can't actually see/experience them in fact. We only ever see (or experience) the trace they leave behind. When Bohr is talking about an "interference effect" he is referring to what we see/experience in fact - (or what a photographic plate experiences in fact). Bohr's "interference effect" is an emperical effect - a factum. And it's a statistical one at that. Otherwise we could point to a single particle trace and claim "look - there is demonstrated interference". Hah. It's absolute baloney Michael. Complete rubbish and you expect people to take you seriously and agree that your reading of Bohr correct. Well sourced it might be but your spin is completely ludicrous. And attributing complementarity to Ehrenfest is the worst defense I have seen emerge from your sorry straw clutching exercise in self delerium. And the way in which you conflate your "already there" argument with Drezet's otherwise decent criticque is absolutely sinful. Your OR is worse than anyone's OR here because you can't even see that it is OR. You are intellectually blind to your very own interpretative positon. Oh yes. I don't understand. You'll seek solace in Zurek, dreaming that everyone is confused and that only YOU understand the universe. Well buddy. Good luck. Just stay out of my way because I'm sick and tired of your stupid simplistic takes on otherwise very interesting theory. --Carl A Looper 06:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carl, before you begin frothing at mouth you should check your facts: I did not attribute complementarity to Ehrenfest; I said Bohr probably knew of and drew on Ehrenfest's theorem in developing his complementarity POV. As for your claim that The single photons to which Bohr refers are theoretical particles. - that is OR.--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please try to stay calm. I removed the derogatory remark by you because it compares Carl to a rabid dog. Do you think that's appropriate? OK then, you remove it yourself, but please do it so that the discussions can remain civil. Patience my friend, patience. -- Prof. Afshar 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that Carl should also stay calm? No, I shall not remove the description, which I still think is a fair response to Carl's outburst. Interesting that you consider Carl's uncivil hyperbole perfectly acceptable; if you're going to act as self-appointed censor you need to be a bit more even-handed in its applicaton. Seriously, though, please do not edit my (or anyone's) comments.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

All editors including Carl and myself should remain polite. I did not catch him using foul language but could have missed it. I will not remove insults anymore, though in the long run it may hurt the individual(s) involved to have such language remain in his archived comments. Hey everybody, let's not start WWIII here OK? -- Prof. Afshar 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility is never justified, even in response to somebody else's transgression. In fact, it is sometimes considered appropriate in Wikipedia to remove uncivil comments made by other people on a Talk page. --Art Carlson 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes, and I'd like to see it applied even-handledly even then; I do not consider my comment uncivil (although that is a matter of opinion); it was certainly milder than Carl's stream of consciousness. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on Carl's side. Although I'm long dead I'm still capable of speaking. As a more appropriate way of expression, I advocated the application of the word phenomenon exclusively to refer to the observations obtained under specified circumstances, including an account of the whole experimental arrangement. In such terminology, the observational problem is free of any special intricacy since, in actual experiments, all observations are expressed by unambiguous statements referring, for instance, to the registration of the point at which an electron arrives at a photographic plate. Moreover, speaking in such a way is just suited to emphasise that the appropriate physical interpretation of the symbolic quantum-mechanical formalism amounts only to predictions, of determinate or statistical character, pertaining to individual phenomena appearing under conditions defined by classical physical concepts. - Neils Bohr.

By "attributing complementarity to Ehrenfest" I mean precisely statements such as:

"Bohr probably knew of and drew on Ehrenfest's theorem in developing his complementarity POV." - MP

Michael is suggesting that Ehrenfest's theorem is what Bohr "probably" means by "classical physical concepts". (as suggested by MP in prior discussions). Apart from being obvious OR it is also completely ludicrous. It goes against the entire grain of what Bohr is saying. Michael wants us to read Bohr as framing the formalism in terms of a "classicism" derived from the formalism. Yet this would just reintroduce the very ambiguitys Bohr is trying to avoid in the first place. --Carl A Looper 04:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, what is ludicrous is that Carl can produce a quote and then claim it means something completely different. Anyone can read my quote and see that Carl's interpretation is entirely unsupported. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Michael. If your words are so ambiguous as to allow "misreadings" such as mine please clarify. If the message I'm getting from you is incorrect then either you have failed to communicate and/or I have failed to understand. Which of these options is correct remains to be seen. However, if you refuse to elaborate any further (which would not surprise me) then it's no longer me who might be failing to understand - it will be just you who are failing to communicate.

For the benefit of other readers, Ehrenfest was brought up in the context of a discussion about Bohr's use of classical concepts. My question was how one could read Bohr's use of classical concepts, as an "echo" of the formalism. Michaels' response was:

"Classical concepts (such as Newton's second law) emerge from the formalism via Ehrenfest's theorem." --Michael C. Price talk 10:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How does one reply to such a thing? After dispatching some thoughts on decoherence Michael responded with:

"I note that you avoided commenting on the emergence of classical concepts, such as Newton's laws of motion, from Ehrenfest's theorem, which is part of the formalism of QM." --Michael C. Price talk 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded to the challenge by suggesting that Bohr's classical concepts were those concepts that classical thought had invented - rather than any that might be re-invented via the formalism. Michael went on to say:

"Bohr and Ehrenfest were particularly close, so Bohr undoubtly drew on Ehrenfest's theorem from the 1920s in developing his ideas on complementarity."--Michael C. Price talk 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So you see. Michael's argument is very clear. But if not he needs to clarify. --Carl A Looper 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, which part is unclear? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You tell me. --Carl A Looper 22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not prepared to back your claims up, eh? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Michael. I am the one who has backed up my claims - by quoting you directly. You are the one that needs to demonstrate how I've misunderstood or misrepresented your Ehrenfest argument. You say:

"No, what is ludicrous is that Carl can produce a quote and then claim it means something completely different. Anyone can read my quote and see that Carl's interpretation is entirely unsupported." - MP

This is a claim by you - ie. that I have misrepresented you. All I'm saying - is if I have misrepresented you then demonstrate how. As far as I am concerned, you were being perfectly clear. But if you were not (or I have misunderstood you) then please clarify. I can't do this for you. As I said, as far as I'm concerned you are perfectly clear. And I feel I have demonstrated such. Your problem is that while you are quick to accuse others of not arguing their case (which is patently incorrect) you refuse, or are incapable of arguing your own case. Have a look in the mirror Michael. And when you're done please argue your case - ie. in what way I have misrepresented your Ehrenfest argument. In other words - what is your argument if it's not the one I have presented here. Otherwise - as far as I'm concerned - what you are saying is perfectly clear - and perfectly incorrect. --Carl A Looper 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources in disputed text #4

This situation is untenable. OR in #4 must be removed ASAP. No reliable source has been provided. Danko's "paper" has been published in "Progress in Physics" (PP) a journal of disrepute due to its publication of papers on violations of special relativity. No one in the physics community takes the "journal" seriously. I have discussed PP above and have provided evidence for its lack of reliability. Such terrible sourcing and outright fallacies make Wikipedia look like a joke. It was placed in the article without a discussion, and must thus be removed immediately until a final decision is made as to its reliability. This problem needs to be addressed by the Mediator ASAP. Thanks. P.S. Please pay particular attention to guidelines set by Jimmy Wales (Wikpedia founder): To ensure something is not OR, you should provide evidence that it "has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers." No such evidence has been provided thus far. Also see Reliable Sources. -- Prof. Afshar 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, stop offending the journal "Progress In Physics". As your interpretations on the content seem to imply that "Foundations of Physics" is as good, as Stefan Marinov has published 4 times in "Foundations of Physics", while the article in PP is "post-humous" and is published as a memorial for the tragic suicide of Marinov. Danko Georgiev MD 09:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• As I discussed at length before, Marinov had several legitimate publications in the 70's in respectable journals like PLA and Found. Phys. yet he later kept pushing crank ideas like perpetual motion machines and absolute motion. To promote his already debunked ideas in a memorial article in PP is in fact worse than Marinov's original attempts. Do you care to explain why exactly he committed suicide? The reason is plain and simple: he tragically succumbed to the rejection from the mainstream physics community that aptly denied him the platform to promote his faulty ideas. This whole issue is a sordid affair, and I do not wish to talk about an individual that has passed away, yet there is not clearer case of carckpottery in 21st century and its promotion than that of Marinov and PP.-- Prof. Afshar 12:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, what about your "violation of complementarity/math consistency"? Did anyone start to offend the journal who published your work? If noone offends the journal where you publish, please be kind not to offend journals and people that you don't even know. p.s. I am glad to have informed some of the relevant people, about your claims, and have been kind to send them exact quotations, and web links of yours. Danko Georgiev MD 09:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means. I look forward to have a discussion with them regarding their paranoid statements about the "scientific Mafia" and bans from arXiv physics pages. If they want to be taken seriously, they should clean their house and avoid publishing absolute nonsense on violations of special relativity, memorial or not. They push fringe ideas on detection of gravitational waves, Aether, all of which would be considered major discoveries, yet no physicist considers them worth reading. Perhaps we are all card carrying members of the "International Mafia" and Einstein's mafia PP's editor believes in. Just scroll down in http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/websites.html to "Progress in Physics" entry for the opinion of some of the other academic co-conspirators! Prof. Afshar 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

MEDIATOR please act now. Editors, please wait for mediator to catch up. -- Prof. Afshar 13:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to lack of action by Mediator, I removed the OR from the article. If anyone wishes to repost it, they he/she must provide reputable peer-reviewed sources. The OR was placed in the article without a discussion, and weeks of discussion seems to have made no improvements in the article. If anyone wants to engage in an edit war, let's roll. Bring in an admin. as the Mediator seems not to act once he comes to a decision. Enough of OR and misleading OR pushing. --Prof. Afshar 14:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have rolled back the article. Let the mediator act as we agreed. Also Afshar is not permitted to edit the article, as has been extensively previously discussed. I suspect the mediator is waiting for us to reach a consensus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I will remove OR period. The Mediator is indecisive, and unqualified, vacillating between one decision and the opposite. The disputed text was posted without a discussion, and should be removed until it is shown its thesis is discussed in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The burden of proof relies by the advocates of the text. Speaking of consensus, do you regard "Progress in Physics" a reliable source? If so provide your reasoning, and no beating around the bush this time please. There must be a distinction between respected journals and fringe pseudoscience. -- Prof. Afshar 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, you know that conflict of interest issues forbid you from editting the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My only interest is upholding Wiki rules. Unreliably sourced must be removed period. You want to involve and admin? Let's roll. -- Prof. Afshar 12:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, please don't go too far. Your offence of the Mediator with the words "The Mediator is indecisive, and unqualified, vacillating between one decision and the opposite" and then you take the JUSTICE in your own hands. I think this is not how Wikipedia works. I have voted above for you to be put on probabtion this time I will vote for you to be banned from editting your article. I hope others will vote below so that you will not be allowed to modify yourself no section of the article of your experiment. My vote is: BAN. Danko Georgiev MD 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An of course many Editors have voted for you to be Banned two weeks ago for reasons described in the following section: "Request for Danko to be banned from editing this article and contributing to the talk page". You can't fool all the people all the time. -- Prof. Afshar 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Specific critiques

I just realized that Danko had removed the following statment from the Specific critiques section without a debate. Without it, it is highly unbalanced, and one-sided, giving the false impression that I have left such critiques without responses. Mediator, please restore the text below in the Specific critiques section:

"Afshar's rebuttals are available on his Q&A archive and FAQ. "

Question: is this reliable source? Peer-reviewed journals are called "not reputable" by Afshar, but his own blog pages are to be considered reputable?? (Afshar, if you did not mention my name, I wouldn't be here, remember?)Danko Georgiev MD 05:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If other Blogs (Motl, Unruh) are to remain, so should the archival one that responds to them remain to keep an NPOV. Danko, if you had not vandalized the article, I wouldn't utter your name. -- Prof. Afshar 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The above text removed by vandalism, has been restored in the interest of neutrality. -- Prof. Afshar 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have rolled back the article. Let the mediator act as we agreed. Also Afshar is not permitted to edit the article, as has been extensively previously discussed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. As an internationally recognized expert on the topic, I have every right to edit the article given the extensive discussion we have had. Especially if the likes of Danko can put OR in the article without a debate. Bring in an expert admin and get this ridiculous edit war over. This is taking too long, all the while the egregious errors remain in the article misleading countless lay readers. This ends now.-- Prof. Afshar 12:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's editorial policy is of course explictly based on being able to verify that someone has said something and NOT on the truth of what they have said. 1Z 15:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's vote on Afshar being able to edit the article. It's just ridiculous that he is stopped from editing the article - especially when he's stopped by people who write rubbish, who circle around Wikipedia policy simply by claiming their contribution is NPOV and not OR, (when it obviously is) - who argue against voting but then want to enforce such mediation when it suits them. --Carl A Looper 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote let Afshar edit the article. --Carl A Looper 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your vote is irrelevant. Wikpedia policy is quite clear that no one should edit an article in which they have a vested interest. This has been discussed before on this talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the policy correctly. Editors with a real or potential conflict of interest are "strongly discouraged" from editing and asked to "exercise great caution" when doing so, but they are not forbidden to do so. --Art Carlson 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reputable peer-reviewd sources (RPS)

Do you consider arXiv, and "Progress in Physics" as RPS? Simple yes and no answers please. I regard both NOT to be RPS due to facts discussed in my above posts.

(Afshar)

Disputed piece #4 condensed and moved to footnote

As I read the discussion, most editors agree that the "disputed piece #4" is not based on sources that are themselves considered reliable and does not represent the views of prominent critics. Although this material would not ordinarily be suitable for Wikipedia, there is also the sentiment, shared by myself, that an effort should be made to represent the state of the criticism as completely as possible, even if that means using somewhat questionable sources. I think a reasonable compromise is to put some of this information in a footnote. This solution can certainly be discussed and eventually overthrown, but from the arguments presented, it is definitely closer to Wiki policy than the status quo. In the process I also removed the quotes since they simply stated the conclusion without explaining how it was arrived at. If anyone seriously objects to this move, please give your reasons succinctly here. I do not consider the extended inaction of the "mediator" to be a valid argument. --Art Carlson 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an amicable solution from my point of view. At some point however, the OR should be removed completely. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing debate

Am removing the ongoing debate section altogether - for a number of reasons:

1. Votes by various editors. 2. Demonstrateable OR (despite MP's claim to the contrary) 3. If it represents an ongoing debate it is only one between Michael and myself. A more robust and sensible debate is represented by the papers in the specific critiques section.

--Carl A Looper 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carl, you have deleted some of the reference note via your edit - so some references look empty, one of Drezet, Unruh, etc. Please go back and repair the reference style as needed, so that there are no "orphan" refs. As you have destroyed the ref information, I think it is your duty to repair these. Danko Georgiev MD 06:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Ok. --Carl A Looper 06:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. I didn't touch the reference section at all. Ok. Will need to revert Onging section and work it out from there. --Carl A Looper 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carl, the original ref template has been deleted from the above text, and then empty ref appears pointing to the ref "name" of the one above, which is now deleted. P.S. I also, support Afshar to be able to edit, yet, please do not supprt his reversals, and offences. I have never been put on probation, nor I am crackpot to be reverted with such a sticker by Afshar. Please don't be blind for such a behavior, let us be civilized, and when Afshar does something bad, let us not close our eyes. Please also revert Afshar's reverts as he feels authorized by your vote giving him rights to edit directly. I and others have already voted and reached the decision that Afshar should be able to edit directly any portion of text, that is not connected with his experimental setup given in the introductory part. The Critique section must be immunized against Afshar's direct edits, otherwise he unbalances, deletes, offends, puts "crackpot labels" and thus pushes extremely his own OR position to the end. Danko Georgiev MD 06:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think I get it now. The original references were embedded in the Ongoing debate section, and the reference section contained the links back to the debate section. I'll see what I can do. --Carl A Looper 06:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've restored the ongoing debate section in order to restore the references. I think I'll just leave it there for the time being till I work out how it's cross referenced and how it can be removed without removing the references! --Carl A Looper 07:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the major problems with Michael's argument is that he conflates an "interference effect" with the wave function, and an "observed particle" with "tracing a path". The formalism embodys the wave function - it does not embody (in a formal sense) the "interference effect". The interference effect is, of course, predicted by the formalism. Now BPC (and Afshar's experiment) is more specifically, about the "interference effect" and it's supposed complementary relationship with the construction (tracing) of a semi-classical path (rather than a particle detection per se). Drezet's argument is an important one which Michael mangles. According to Bohr (which Drezet notes) one can not reconstruct the wave function from a set of individual particle detections. One can, of course, reconstruct composite or "pseudo-wave functions". And this happens quite a lot in information theoretic terms. But in Afshar's experiment, unlike the conventional twin slit experiment, it is actually impossible to reconstruct even a pseudo-wave function. In many ways Afshar's experiment is better than the twin slit experiment since it elliminates the very possibility of reconstructing a pseudo-wave function (I'm ignoring the minor fourier components discernible). In other words, Bohr's warning is actually irrelevant here. Another important point is that, in solid state experiments such as the Afshar experiment, (and the twin slit experiment), the wave function associated with any single detection is mathematically equivalent to the wave function for any other particle detection - ie. in the same solid state experiment. This does not mean they are the same (in a formal sense) - but it does mean one can recycle the math from such, for use in constructing a brand new wave function for prescribing a new particle detection - on the proviso that each is understood as a brand new wave function. But back to BPC. BPC concerns the "interference effect" which IS A STATISTICAL EFFECT. What Bohr was warning against was reading the formal wave function as a statistical effect - if only by definition - by it's very postulation as an a priori concept for predicting single particle detections. But in the Afshar experiment, the wave function (and the formalism) is not at issue. Michael wants it to be but he's wrong. One of the key strategys in the Afshar experiment is to produce an "interference effect" via the intensity of photons detections (per unit area of space or ideally at a point) rather than via the traditional method ie. by a statistical distribution of detections over space. It is the production of an "interference effect" and what's more it even prevents any "illegal" reconstruction of the wave function. And that is how it should be because that is what BPC is all about. It is about just such effects - and the conditions in which just such effects are physically realisable. On the other side is the path function. A semi-classical path not to be confused with Feynman's path integral. Feynman's path integral is a way of constructing the wave function. Bohr's path is a different beast. But it is not important here. I merely wish to show up how Michael's argument is confused at best and deliberately misleading at worst. --Carl A Looper 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While awaiting final deletion of the entire Ongoing debate section I've partially "deconflated" Michael's argument so that the first part does not run into and become "naturalised" by the second part. Furthermore I've given prominance to the quotes and less prominance to Michael's paraphrasing. --Carl A Looper 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I've put back clearer counter arguments and removed Michael's name from his arguments. --Carl A Looper 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Carl A Looper's attempt on 26 Mar to eliminate the entire Ongoing debate section. The content is confused and unattributed. Now that there is some meat in the Specific critiques section (which should perhaps be renamed, as well as extended and organized), I think it is much more useful. Carl seemed to be stopped mostly by technical problems and there didn't seem to be much outcry from the other editors, so I will now take on the task myself. --Art Carlson 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On Afshar's vandalism

Dear Carl, and others. I agree that Afshar can edit the article, as far as, he does not insert personal offences on other authors. Afshar has claimed himself "expert in the field" and then edits the article by offending others like prof. T. Qureshi, who is really great scientist, has numerous contributions to QM, has shown that Afshar makes simple error in calculations, and has his article accepted in peer-reviewed journal, so let us peacufully expect this event (publication of Qureshi's work), and do not offend each others. Concerning the Progress in Physics, this is official article, peer-reviewed and published in the standard procedures, if Afshar wants to send rebuttal etc., he is free to do so, yet Wikipedia is NOT the place for PARTISAN WARS. Let us be solidary with each other and let Afshar edit the article, but as I said above, as far as he does not offend other people. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until and unless OR contained in the old disputed text # 4 is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, it should be removed from the article page. If the text remains in the footnotes, at the very least, the statement qualifying the status of the DQD "papers" (such as the one by Art Carlson) should remain to remind the readers of the lack of general support in physics community for their argument. As far as I know, no respectable journal would publish Qureshi's false and erroneous arguments. As for PP, we know what kind of a "journal" it is, the very fact that one ends up "publishing" in such a "journal" is rebuttal enough! -- Prof. Afshar 07:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, If I look above, I see only your offences, and I see no real argument against PP being good and reputable journal. Did the readers of Wikipedia need Afshar's approval of journals, if so, then post your request in Wiki, and by-the-way give us a list of all "Afshar's reputable" journals, just to know where to publish in the future. I guess at the very moment prof. Qureshi's paper appears, then the place will be also "Afshar's disreputable journal". Did someone ask you why Phys. Rev. Letts. REJECTED your manuscript? Did anyone ask why two other journals rejected it also, before appearing in Found. Phys. where traditionally violations of relativity articles are published - see Wesley, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 10, Nos. 5/6, 1980, 503-511 on Michelson-Morley, and other papers. Danko Georgiev MD 08:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Update of Progress in Physics article

Well, all wiki-editors can read and judge for themselves. Curent text points to "e-prints" however my article has been released in reputable peer-review journal. If one is to be objective, then this must be incorporated and repaired. One must also remove any label on the authors. To classify who is notable, who is good scientist and who is bad scientist is not the topic in the main article. P.s. My article is indeed the first reputable source on Unruh's experiment, announcement about possible reply from Unruh, is also done on Progress In Physics web page http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/issues.html Danko Georgiev MD 06:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PP is reputable?! It publishes violations of known physical laws right and left. See above discusions on the issue.-- Prof. Afshar 07:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Prominence of critics

Continuing with the "Specific critiques" section, I notice that all the references arguing the "erasure of information" are from non-refereed sources, so that inclusion (at least in the main text) should be based on the prominence of the authors. I haven't heard of any of them before, but at least Unruh and Motl have blue links. Would it be reasonable to just keep those two as representatives of this argument in the main text and to mention Kastner, Drezet, and Steuernagel in a footnoote? Also I do not find the quotations very enlightening. Wouldn't it be better to briefly say why they draw that conclusion? --Art Carlson 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, if you check the vol.3 for 2007 of PP here you will see that there is announced reply by Unruh. I have seen his preliminary draft, and I already sent back to Unruh locating an error of him. So, the Editor-In-Chief of PP is uncertain whether Unruh will re-submit, nevertheless the expected reply is announced now as "coming". The whole discussion better be solved by peer-reviewing and publishing in reputable journals. It took Afshar more than 2 years and half to publish, after series of rejections in top journals. Only now after Afshar's paper is published, not so famous journals, but still good enough [PP has editorial board of four top mathematicians], accept to discuss this experiment [previously no journal will discuss web blogs]. So after 3 months maybe we will see Unruh's reply, and possibly I will also be invited to answer, also prof. Qureshi's and mine work are submitted to other journals and if our analysis is correct, then it will be solved only on math grounds, and nothing will depend on the "notability" or "Wiki-notability" of the authors. As I see Afshar pushes too far his opinion, offends people, and boldly proclaims jimself as expert in the field. Well, Afshar has only 1 paper so far, compare prof. Tabish Qureshi's numerous contributions in QM. Also, prof. Tabish Qureshi is extremely honest physicist and a man, to reject working on Nuclear Weapons, and thus had to leave his previos job. I think everyone sees that Afshar is "promo" oriented and not "science" oriented. If he had disproof, he would have posted at least in arXiv, and would not have offended all of us as "disreputable", "publishing for money", etc. Indeed before my article was accepted Afshar was quite sure that I will never have accepted my work because it is "crackpotery", yet, even I have much more contributions [some of them invited] on topic of bio-physics and QM in biosystems. Afshar's sole paper, does not give him rights to proclaims everyone opposing his views as "crackpot". Please Update the links of my published paper, as well as Kastner's published paper - my edit was reverted by Afshar, despite of the fact that in two of my edits I have updated Kastner's work. I don't have time to do internet war. If one checks back my edits, he will find all the journal bibliography, etc. needed. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 10:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Over the next few years, I am sure science will take its course, and this article will be much easier to write in an way that all parties agree is NPOV. The case could be made that it is too early for any article at all on the Afshar experiment, precisely because there has not been time for the scientific community to respond through its official channels. I am looking for a compromise that allows our readers to find out about this interesting experiment, but also alternative interpretations of it. I agree that giving extra weight to blue links is an imperfect mechanism. It is not clear to me how you propose to deal with the situation until such time as peer-reviewed responses are available. (And please try to refrain from personal attacks on Prof. Afshar.) --Art Carlson 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, I have not personally attacked Afshar, he is the one who reverted my last edits on the published Kastner paper - published in Elsevier peer-review journal!, yet, Afshar wants to silence this fact. My work has been peer-reviewed and published in very good mathematical physics journal, so it is peer-reviewed verifiable source also, one can replace the link to my PhilSci preprint, which indeed has been completely revised in its style for the PP paper. So the relevant source is here

      Georgiev DD. Single photon experiments and quantum complementarity. Progress in Physics 2007; 2: 97-103.

Concerning prof. Tabish Qureshi one can insert the Wiki-link as it is brief and concize entry on his over two decades contributions on foundations of QM. Prof. Qureshi worked on almost all such foundational problems, as Popper's experiment, originally aimed to disprove Copenhagen view by sir Karl Popper who is an icon of XX century, another topic is the ghost interference in Many-worlds interpretation of QM, and now he has focused on Afshar's paradoxical claims. So I have suggested at least, 3 worth to be done things - inclusion of 2 peer-reviewed sources [check for Kastner's one in my main article edit reverted by Afshar as "vandalism"], ...

Do you mean this edit? Afshar didn't delete any references there. I don't recall seeing any peer-reviewed references from Kastner - only one preprint and one conference proceeding. --Art Carlson 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this edit of Afshar. Please careful look, that he reverts this edit of mine - in RED letters - comprare the old, and newer version. I have added this peer-reviewed journal of kastner

         author = Kastner R 
         title = Why the Afshar experiment does not refute complementarity?
         journal = Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
         volume = 36 
         pages = 649–658
         year = 2005 

note: Kastner has NOT updated her arXiv, yet the DOI and the paper provided by me are well peer-reviewede and verifiable. I am afraid you should be more cautious to monitor Afshar's reverts and edits.

OK. I see it now. Thanks. Can everyone read this link, or do we need to provide the arXiv link in addition? --Art Carlson 10:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

... and inclusion of wiki-link to Tabish Qureshi. ...

Done. --Art Carlson 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

... Also in my personal opinion there is no honest criterion that suggests part of the critiques to be moved as footnote, as they are peer-reviewed sources, concerning the notability of researchers notability is irrelevant for who is right or not. ...

And who is right or not is irrelevant for Wikipedia. WP:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." None of the sources in the footnote are peer-reviewed. --Art Carlson 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unless somebody updates the link of my published paper. It is provided above, so if you point to the PhilSci pre-print the above statement will be true. However the PhilSci paper is NOT anymore pre-print, as it has been printed in Progress in Physics, 2007; vol.2 with changed name, and slightly revised style of text. I think that deletion of the link to the PhilSci preprint and replacement with peer-reviewed and published paper is better. Danko Georgiev MD 09:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I have updated your reference. I also agree that my qualification of the three "no info even if" references is problamatical, so I have deleted it pending further discussion. --Art Carlson 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

... The Wiki-entries are always created by people who admirate the contributions of someone, I personally exactly as you [Art] have never heard of Unruh and Motl, before reading in Wikipedia, and I am not impressed by their math inconsistent analysis of Afshar's setup. Nervertheless I do NOT force or push extreme views that their opinions on the topic be deleted, or moved as footnotes. Yes, their views remained on web blogs, and I believe in case when they are officially disproved neither Motl nor Unruh will bother of publishing officially their web thoughts. (Note: Unruh's setup is officially described in my peer-reviewed paper, while Motl's analysis is not mentioned anywhere except on his blog). However I personally think the Critiques section must be restored in its original form divided into two groups of objections, then all web links updated, and finally Afshar once and for all be banned from reverting the Critique section. As I clearly explained in previous posts, Afshar may edit concerning the meaning of his own papers, and on the experimental details of what he has done, but he must not put his Afshar's approval, on what others have said regarding Afshar's views. If a researcher publishes that Afshar's view is inconsistent, it is his own right to defend this position with the tools of mathematical logic. And this implies future mathematical discussion, not Afshar's views on the improtance of mathematics at first place, or Afshar's labeling of the opposing scientist with "crackpot" or other offensive names. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Specific critiques

In its current form the whole section is not logical. Before there were two groups of specific critiques, which were clearly separated by the criterion when the which way is erased (i.e. when the grid is put, or it is erased by the interference even if there is no grid). Now this information is deleted. And if there is no such criteria on the common priciple that grounds given opinion, then WHAT makes the critique of Unruh "specific"? Nothing! - the quotation says that "Bohr wouldn't have whatsoever problem". This is repeated 3 more times for the rest of the scientists. What is the common of their claims, is WHY Afshar claims are wrong, and this is what you [Art] and Afshar have deleted. To repeat in quotations that "Bohr wouldn't have whatsoever problem" several times is meaningless, as it does not say WHY Bohr wouldn't have the problem at first place. I think all these quotations should be deleted, and only reference to researcher's work be left. Concerning the statement that the "non-prominent" scientist work has not been peer-reviewed and published - it is a lie, and does not correspond to the truth. Also as prof. Qureshi now has wiki-entry, I am not sure why he is labelled as "non-prominent" yet others that do not even have wiki-entry are "prominent" as they remain in the main text. p.s. I do not suggest that the whole section should be a footnote. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that the quotes can be removed without loss of content (as I already said above). Any comments from the others? It would be better to add something on the reasoning, but I suggest we don't try to do everything at once. --Art Carlson 10:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the edits. At least some of the true information has been recovered. Now, I don't know what else Afshar may object, there are at least 2 peer-reviewed objections, as Kastner's appears in 2005 2 years before Afshar's paper sees "white day". Still, one may delete the not informative quotations, as well as this incorrect statement, footnote on no which way, "See, for example, the following preprints", it is wrong as the updated paper of mine is no more pre-print, but paper print journal. Soon I will have the new paper print volume as an author, so I will be able to deposit several journal copies in the University Library of Kanazawa University. Still, there are under peer-review works of mine and Qureshi, so let us not engage ourselves in a partisan war for that time. This is particularly relevant and request to Afshar, to stop offending the others for a while. Danko Georgiev MD 11:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the statement about preprints so that it now only refers to Qureshi and Reitzner. I have added a parenthetical statement after your reference that Progress in Physics "prides itself on questioning orthodox views". I think that is a characterization that supporters and detractors can agree on. I think the nature of PP is sufficiently different from other scientific publications that a "disclaimer" of this sort is a service to the reader. --Art Carlson 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, are you making parody of PP? Where did you read this? As far as I know my proof defends the "orthodox views" while the Afshar's proof questions the "orthodox views". I consider your remark as offensive and parodizing my contribution as IF I am defending "un-orthodox" view. The PP journal sais that it publishes topics on physics of interest and related math issues. Please remove your comment as derogatory. We are not here to discuss which journal of what is proud. Also the Wiki-entry on PP is not really very nice in its form. Somebody has possibly in-appropriately inserted the quotation, I wouldn't myself included it at first place. I just updated the references, as always, my edits are mostly to provide the original sources, and I never delete factual information, except in cases where obvious violations of Wiki-policy appears. Your remark on PP is highly subjective, hence not appropriate for Wikipedia. Readers themselves can click on the PP link and read and decide for themselves. Danko Georgiev MD 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I have myself re-edited the wiki-text on Progress in Physics, as the remark was possibly written by person with ill intentions aiming at pushing some personal attitude, which is not acceptable. The home page of PP clearly states the objectives of the journal, and I see nowhere to be written that all kind of "crack-pottery" is acceptable for publishing. I still think that offending journals, is not suitable discussion for Wikipedia. Let us wait, and see future works are to be published soon, prof. Qureshi has already announced that his article is accepted, mine second paper is under peer-review. Danko Georgiev MD 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. 2 I have found remark done by user Ckerr so I have posted note on his talk page, that I have reverted his edits. Dear Art, please delete the comment as the "pride of the journal" reflects the mentioned user Ckerr personal OR. Danko Georgiev MD 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The quotation on "orthodox views" came from the section "Article 7: Freedom of disagreement in scientific discussion" in the Declaration of Academic Freedom signed by "Dmitri Rabounski, Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Physics". I see no reason to doubt that that is an accurate indication of the POV of this journal. --Art Carlson 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the quotation out of context, Talk:Progress_in_Physics. Danko Georgiev MD 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Art, let us discuss this topic at the PP talk page. Quoting out of context is bad quoting, and pushes OR views and usually not-good intentions. Please note that I am academic scholar, PhD researcher at the moment in neuroscience, and I am word-by-word acquainted with ALL sections of the mentioned Academic Declaration, as I did the Bulgarian translation for free, as a protest of the nonsense going on in science. My PhD topic has been changed into one that I dislike [i.e. not like too much?], every journal with impact factor above 3, not only checks your affiliations, and the "notable co-authors with you" so that hardly be called science. The main idea of the whole Declaration should be understood after complete reading from A to Z. The stress is on fair science, and judging on solely scientific grounds, and not on extra-scientific factors as notability, money-invested, etc. The Declaration does not say all crackpots are wellcome to publish with us. The declaration implies that crackpot work will be rejected because of logical inconsistency, and not on grounds of lack of eduation, or lack of affiliation. Yes, this requires at least the peer-reviewer to read the submitted mnuscript first. In IOP journal Pure and Applied Optics, my paper was returned in 24 h with note "Dear author, unfortunately your article topic is outside the scope of the journal". I am not afraid to confess that, this is commercialized publishing. Bad is, when journal returns peer-review comments that clearly show that your work is nonsense. . Danko Georgiev MD 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. This topic is irrelevant for this talk page, I have seen your edits on PP, so I fully AGREE. Yet, please now revert your edits of (preprint), (the journal prides ..). etc notes, see the section below. Otherwise, I request you to insert also full categorization of all sources, so 3 new labels are to appear - (blogs), (not peer-reviewed proceedings), and (yellow press). I hope you realize what my true point is. Danko Georgiev MD 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's such a ridiculous idea to give a one-link characterization of the nature of our sources. It would help readers that are not at all familiar with the nature of scientific publications. For sophisticated readers, "arXiv" is enough. I will remove the preprint designation for consistency pending further discussion.

The note on PP is more difficult. A reader who has not heard of PP - and most have not - will assume that it is a mainline journal. To put this reference into proper perspective, it is important to know that the philosophy of PP differs significantly from that of other publications. You make this very point in your comments above. I have tried to formulate this is a NPOV way by quoting from the Declaration. Would you like to suggest a more appropriate characterization? We will in any case continue to discuss PP on Talk:Progress in Physics. --Art Carlson 09:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please find me exactly where is said "This journal prides itself on questioning orthodox views". Thanx! Danko Georgiev MD 09:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "prides itself" was my editorial choice, not a direct quote. Looking back at the Declaration, I feel this phrase is accurate and NPOV. Would you like to suggest an alternative? --Art Carlson 10:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Second question, why prof. Qureshi's link is in the footnote, and Drezet is in the main article? Just wondering - me and Drezet have no great scientific background as both of us are youngsters below 30 years, yet prof. Qureshi has big enough academic record, as he is already awarded PhD, in contrast with me and Drezet. Also Qureshi has a Wiki-link, in contrast to Sternaugel who is completely unfamousm, not to mention that his analysis is subject to objections Danko Georgiev MD 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the fact that Drezet does not have a PhD (which I didn't know) is an argument that he is not a prominent expert and therefore should perhaps be mentioned only in a footnote. I am, however, surprized that you argue that way, considering that the Declaration seems to have low regard for formal qualifications. --Art Carlson 10:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not argueing in that way! I am testing what are the limits of your honesty in applying your own criteria! For me whether Drezet has PhD or not is NOT relevant. If I cared about notabilities, I would never have argued against Unruh. Yet, I am expecting that Unruh will withdraw his flawed letter, announced in PP, so that the whole issue is decided once and for all. Neverhteless I think there is more interesting events to come in PP, in the dialogue Georgiev vs. Unruh, instead of posting here offenses on journals, etc. p.s. I quit from this discussion, provided no personal attacks against my name appear in the talk. Danko Georgiev MD 10:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You created the Wiki page for Qureshi. The main problem however is the fact that DQD espouse a thesis (lack of WWI without wires in Wheeler's setup) that is a much bigger claim than violation of BPC. In fact I believe the entire DQD ref.s should be moved to the article on Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, as they are actually questioning him and all the physics world by proxy.-- Prof. Afshar 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)