Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 7

message: Danko, If you accuse me of Fraud one more time, I will report you to your academic institution and peruse Slander legal actions against you and whoever backs you. If you do not want your future ruined by your stupid actions, cease and desist immediately. I will also initiate a ban request for you from Wikipedia. You must apologize to me or face the consequences. Do not force me to do what I utterly dislike. Whoever wishes to help me with banning Danko from Wikipedia please let me know. -- Prof. Afshar 06:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have to agree with Prof. Afshar that Danko is toeing the boundary of disciplinary action, by his name calling and obsessive behavior. If Danko wishes to make a contribution to the debate, he should write up his treatise and have it published in archiv or elsewhere, like 3 of the critics have done. To make a campaign out of his disagreement, is not the way that scientific inquiry is conducted. The noise level introduced in this debate by Danko only serves to muddle the issue and becomes a distraction for those who wish to learn about this experiment, the controversy, and debate.  Now, unrelated to this thread, but in order to mitigate any possible accusations of socketry and puppetry and parrotry, let me incidentally just add that I disagree with the scientific conclusion of this work, and maintain that distinguishibility is close to one, while visibility is close to zero.Forkhume 10:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Forkhume, here I will agree with Afshar's position and will actually tell you that V is close to 1, not to zero. I have already extensively commented on that. Danko Georgiev MD 05:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No legal threats, please. Stifle 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Warning to Danko Georgiev

message: Afshar's wrong thesis: " very briefly, the photons happen to have linear momentum. Upon detection at the image plane the conservation laws demand that they must have originated from he corresponding pinhole. I did not make up this law, it simply is Nature in action! "
In classical physics you can denote the momentum by vector - it has magnitude and direction.
In QM you cannot measure both these values correctly - if you measure the momentum magnitude, you actually do not measure its direction, and you do not really measure momentum, but you make mesurement of photon's energy. So the popular view that the interference picture is measuring momentum is not fully correct - better say that the interference picture is measuring photon's energy because E = \frac{h c}{\lambda}.
The popular view is misleading because you may imagine classical momentum vector, and thus think as Afshar does that you have correspondence with a pinhole. However this is wrong and the uncertainty in the momentum's direction is what erases the which way info, and you cannot be sure whether the photon passed through pinhole 1 or pinhole 2. 
If you put the two pinholes far from each other, so that the uncertainty is much less than the interpinhole distance, then you will have distinguishable photons [at least by time of their arrival] and you will lose the interference picture. Actually you will not measure Energy [wavelength] anymore, but you will measure time arrival. I think that it is better to interprete the Afshar experiment in terms of Heisenberg's E, t uncertainty, instead of classical p, x uncertainty. The problem in the latter is that momentum in classical physics is vector with magnitude and direction, while in QM these both are subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty. I hope this little lecture will be of help to Afshar also, who for 18 years struggles to see the difference between momentum in classical physics and momentum in QM. Right? Danko Georgiev MD 10:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Dear Danko, ONCE a photon is absorbed it's momentum is constrained by the geometry of the experimental setup (in accordance with the conservation laws), which in the case of my experiment is well-defined, and different for each image. One does not assign a momentum vector to the photon prior to measurement, but after it's wavefunction collapses we have no other choice, otherwise would have to violate the conservation laws. If you disagree with this analysis, you are essentially diasagreeing with Bohr, Einstein, Wheeler, Greenberger, Englert, Zeilinger, Scully...; not to mention the rest of physicsts in the world! That would be a bigger feat than violating the Principle of Complementarity, but one that I would not support. Also, please understand that Heisenberg's uncertainty Principle is not violated in my experiment and any claim to the contrary is wrong. Assigning such claims to me is disinformation. This is not an educational forum, nor do I have the time to correct the seemingly endless errors you make. For the last time, please heed the statement at the top of the page, and allow the agreed upon process discussed in the voting debate to start. Please respect the outcome of your failed deletion bid. Interference with that process may lead to being blocked from Wikipedia. -- Prof. Afshar 12:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Afshar, your post is non-sense. I have opposed to Unruh, Drezet, Cramer, Zeilinger .. etc., so IF you add some more names that have made the same error like you, you should provide some direct quotations, and then list them in my negative list. Science is science, so anyone who understands mathematics can check and see that you do not understand what is momentum in QM. In order to make retrospective claim you need to have your photon labeled (e.g. by polarization filters at the pinholes), otherwise it is the uncertainty principle that forbids you to make which way propositions. Read some papers in Physical Reviews because I do not have time to teach you. Danko Georgiev MD 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Momentum in QM 

message: Danko could you summarize here in few sentences your argumentations or put a link to a paper ?
regards
Drezet  27 /01/06
Dear Aurelien, I do not know why you want my argument clearly, but I will do just because I have formulated my main thesis in a dozen of EQUIVALENT formulations. Most of you think that everything is just rumbling, but IF turn back and investigate all my examples, you will see a single main thesis, that reveals its face in different angle. So below I put the summary of my thesis.
:*The Afshar experiment should be understood of terms of E, t uncertainty, where Afshar's claim is incompatible with Heisenberg's principle. It is clear that V=1, because the wires, may be well silver compund detectors of light. Since they detect nothing they are in absolutely dark, hence they record interference minima, and perform Reininger's negative collapse of the wavefunction in basis E (energy). So you know precisely the wavelength \lambda of the photon, by the spacing of the wire-detectors, and E = \frac{h c}{\lambda}. But IF you know the which way [K=1] you can calculate the time for arrival of the photon from its emission to its absorbtions. THIS VIOLATES HEISENBERG. But I say that there is no which way, because the photon goes through both pinholes and each photon is in superposition at each detector. Since he has followed two different trajectories each one by single pinhole, you have two calculate time travel by two different length paths, so you have uncertainty in time - so, no which way!
:*Why Afshar makes error? He does not understand the difference between classical and quantum momentum. In classical physics you have vector with defined magnitude and direction. In complementarity this does not happen. [1] Suppose you have Afshar's experiment you have measured the wavelength, so you know the MAGNITUDE of the momentum, but because the photon has passed thorugh both pinholes [no which way] you do not know the DIRECTION of the vector of momentum. [2] Now suppose another example if you put two polarization filters on the pinholes. Photons are not coherent so no interference will occur and the wire detectors will capture 6 % of the photons. But suppose you remove the wire grid - you still have two well resolved pinholes at the image plane. But this image will not be superposition (pure state) but will be mixed state image. You know exactly the pinhole throught which the photon has arrived to the detector, because you can measure his polarization. So you know the DIRECTION of the photon's momentum, but you neither know the photon's energy, nor photon's wavelength \lambda, so you do not know the MAGNITUDE p of the momentum vector, because p=\frac{h}{\lambda} 
Afshar, Unruh et al. believe in Afshar's claim about which way info, and his argument is in conservation of momentum. There is NO SUCH THING in QM. Quantum momentum cannot have precise magntitude of the vector, and precise direction of the vector at the same time - this is forbidden by Heisenberg's principle and complementarity.Danko Georgiev MD 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. Dear Aurelien, I still have not published a paper because currently I work on my Ph.D. thesis and I don't have so much time. Also I stopped uploading of e-prints, before peer-reviewing, and I stopped to produce single authored papers. If someone interested in physics wants to collaborate with me on my argument against Afshar I will be glad to collect and present all my draft papers, and posts. I think that once you see the weirdness of quantum momentum, and K = 0 in Afshar's experiment you will have to withdraw you arXiv entry, so you will enter my company of people who have withdrawn pre-print at least once  :-) Danko Georgiev MD 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danko's point of view 

message: Drezet your article just shows what I already advocate since 2004.
I put direct links to your math theory
V - visibility of fringes - in Afshar setup is V=1, because in the minima he detects zero light, or almost zero light. This is Reininger negative measurement. Actually the wires are wide enough to detect 6% of the light intensity if you put polarization filters.
K - which way info - is IDENTICAL to D - distingushability in your math formalism. D = 0, so you cannot distiguish from which pinhole the photon comes, so D = 0. There is no which way information. The photon comes in pure state, so the photon is in superposition and both detectors. No which way - so you have pure state density matrix, so you have non-zero off-diagonal elements, so you have photon being holographically at both detectors at once at the image plane. The fact that after that you collapse the superposed photon in basis D1, D2 is irrelevant. The same is in the Fourier plane - there the photon is in superposition at many fringes at once, but you nevertheless collapse it only somewhere in the Fourier plane, you cannot detect the single photon at pieces spread everywhere, can you?
In order to have which way measurement you should produce somehow mixed state of the photon. This can be done by entanglement with polarization filters, where the reduced density matrix of the whole systems that described the photon only will "look-like" mixed one. So you will have which way information, but not interference. You will be able to diffract 6% of the photons by the wires in Afshar's setup. The fact is that in the entangled state, the photon is not really in mixed state, but the interference info is encoded in the entanglement of the whole system [say photon plus polarization filters]. If you decide to delete the polarization of the photon, in case you have not yet collapsed it [not destructive measurement is done yet], so you can restore back the interference, but this cannot happen without deletion of the which way info.
Best, Danko Georgiev MD 04:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Drezet's Wiki Entry 

message: Dear Drezet, Please bear in mind that the observed interference pattern (IP) is a fully visible one (V=1). The IP you have shown has a low visibility (V<1). If you replace it with an IP in which the dark fringes have zero intensity (V=1), the graphics would be correct. Please let me know what you wish to do. Regards. -- Prof. Afshar 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics for Theory Section 

message: I am wondering if Carl Looper is not indeed another sockpuppet of Afshar, and whether it is not Afshar itself? Crazy, isn't it? But not surprizing! Danko Georgiev MD 04:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, actually, I do not value your opinion! Why so paranoid?!--Prof. Afshar 12:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a compliment (of sorts) to be confused with Afshar, (or even Danko) but I am not he. But why should it matter? Is the content of what I am saying any different if I were Afshar? - Carl Looper.
Afshar already has some experience in sockpuppeting, so I decided that he plays another game. But my suggestion to Looper is if he opens an account. If somebody is not ashamed of what he is posting online, he can boldly put his name below his notes. To be wrong sometimes means nothing, it happens to all of us all the time in different situations in life. Danko Georgiev MD 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another sockpuppet? 

message: I don't know, what most of all may think, but to leave the section titled as References will be even more funny - in the section remains Science fiction column, New Scientist yellow press, and Afshar's unpublished paper, except in Conference bulletin.
My change reflects the repetition of Motl's work and web link to the same resource at two places - as critique ans then as reference, and the other paper link was added personally by me, but it has nothing to do with Afshar's pseudoscience, but should be listed in possible section on wheeler's delayed choice experiment. So what remained as references is just a bunch of sci fi popular writings, and I decided to rename it into Proponents section. To leave it as References will be just a joke. Danko Georgiev MD 05:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On References vs. Proponents section 

message: As per discussions with CSTAR I added a link to the archived Q&A section of my weblog where some of the critics have been addressed.--Afshar 18:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is a useful source of information on response to critics. The issue was fully discussed (see CSTAR's talk page.)-- Prof.Afshar 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This should be an answer for DG.
KEY policy of Wikipedia : Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus.Drezet 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Q&A

message: I added the dates for the intital work at IRIMS and later at Harvard.--Afshar 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates added

message: I don't see the experiment as disproving complementarity.  Let's talk somewhere after I get back from vacation.  (And I think John G. Cramer has less physical intuition than a WP:CIVIL violation removed.  I had an E-mail exchange with him on the apparent gravitational position of the sun -- he sees an anomaly of \frac{8.3\ \mathbf{min}}{365.25\  \mathbf{solar\  days}}, and I do not.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comment from a roving mathematician

message: Could this article be merged to Complementarity (physics)? Something seems wrong with having an article on an experiment by someone who is actually an editor of the article.  -- Astrokey44|talk 13:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This experiment is too much on the fringe to be merged in there, I think.  We've had two requests for deletion here; let's just leave it.  Pfalstad 15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This experiment was conducted by me, and as a scientist I have a duty to defend its veracity against any accusations, most notably from crackpots, who by-the-way have requested the two deletion bids. I respect your opinion if you think this is a fringe experiment, (with much evidence against that view) however, it has been notably covered by international media, and a number of papers have been published and are currently underway regarding it (just Google Afshar experiment). I'm sorry if defending my integrity has offended anyone, but I will not allow any individual regardless of rank or background to harm my reputation. BTW/ I have strictly adhered to the agreed-upon editing process discussed in the last deletion "bid".-- Prof. Afshar 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge? 

message: Re: Could this article be merged to Complementarity (physics)? 
As User:Pfalstad points out, this has been proposed, twice, and rejected. However, I suggest removing all details about complementarity from this article. The article should be limited to saying what Afshar's experiment consists of, where it was conducted, what it claims to disprove and facts about how it is viewed in the scientific community (almost all negative).
To say the experiment is on the fringe is hardly a personal attack. However, Danko's apparent suggestion there is fraud involved is completely unwarranted and I may remove those comments from this talk page. It's one thing to say the experiment's conclusions are wrong or some other observation about the experiment itself. Did I misunderstand you Danko? Making such accusations is almost certainly contrary to WP policy.
Afshar, please avoid using charged words such as "crackpot". 
Moreover, as has already been pointed out by linas (and is also policy) the purpose of this and any article talk page is to discuss the content and structure of the article, not the experiment.  If the validity of the experiment or its justification needs to be discussed, that is original research. It is however, the responsability of the writers of the article to fairly report the general consensus of the scientific community in regard to this experiment, which I believe is overwhelmingly negative.  If you want to do something useful Danko, document this fact from the published literature (not from your own opinions or research if it's not published).--CSTAR 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue at hand right now, is Danko's Fraud accusations, which I utterly dismiss. That is a  defamatory   personal attack that can directly affect my career and cannot be tolerated in WP. As for the consensus of the community, one can refer to the credible critics (as the article has) and avoid making generalization as to what the entire community believes, which can only be achieved by taking a scientific survey. One cannot extrapolate a community consensus based on a few early and vociferous critics. Let time decide the merits of the experiment and community consensus. However, allowing a non-expert to muddy the waters in a serious scientific debate only reduces the legitimacy of Wikipedia, which must be avoided. Remember the Seigenthaler affair? -- Afshar 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re The issue at hand right now, is Danko's Fraud accusations. OK I think we agree that this kind of accusation on WP is unacceptable, even in a talk page,  unless, of course somebody is actually convicted in a court. --CSTAR 18:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers, personal attacks and other comments 

message: Garzo has agreed to arbitrate and settle the dispute on personal attacks in this article. Please hold your comments until the process is finalized. Thanks! -- Afshar 18:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration by an administrator