Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 6

message: Dear Carl, thanks for your reply. You ask WHY Afshar makes the error. I have already provided the answer WHY . I have shown that wave functions CANNOT be distinguished ONLY by having a probability distribution at a single plane, no matter whether it is image plane, or any other plane. The probability distribution function is defined in 4D [I speak about the probability distribution function which changes in time!] so knowing the probability in just a single 2D plane does not give you the spatial 3D behavior of this function [neither gives you the temporal behavior]. TYPICAL EXAMPLE is Afshar - he sees two well formed pinhole images and like little child say "here it is the which way info". The WHY of your question, is answered by BECAUSE Afshar is ignorant in basic math principles. Alas, this is common feature to others as well like Aurelien Drezet, that connects the image plane with which way info, and Fourier plane with no which way info. I ALREADY HAVE SHOWN in my pdf quoted above that IF you have polarized photons the lens CANNOT provide REALLY full Fourier transform, but creates TWO INDEPENDENT FOURIER TRANSFORMS i.e. the typical mixed state. Actually Drezet is not the only one who makes this labeling of lens planes with names "which way one", "no which way one", "bla bla one". This even presented in Anton Zeilenger's papers, but what can I do. Nothing! This is WRONG math, based on WRONG clasical and popular misunderstandings, only math can open the eyes of these people, but they do not want to see it. In simple sentence - IF you want to SEE the probability distribution LOOK at the whole 3D space, otherwise you cannot make claims about what function you have [i.e. which way one, or no which way one - lens planes do not have which-way/no-which-way property, the probability distribution function has which-way/no-which-way property and it is described by the nature of the density matrix of the quantum state] Danko Georgiev MD 05:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Question is WHY? 

message: Dear Carl, although I do not want to convince you that Afshar's error is not just interpretation, but very deep math problem, I will just note by the way that usually complementarity is linked to non-commutable variables, and Heisenberg's principle. So why Afshar never stated that he has disproved Heisenberg's principle as well. Here is the quotation from the wiki article:
"The principle of complementarity states that two complementary physical observables cannot both be measured for any given quantum particle. For example, a particle's position and momentum cannot be observed at the same time: this is Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle."
Well, I suspect that after Afshar gets the Nobel prize for disproving Bohr, he will apply for second Nobel prize disproving Heisenberg. He possibly does not want to shoot everything at once. Danko Georgiev MD 11:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dear Carl, I am glad that you have seen your error. Actually your hologram experiment idea was very good one, and after that you were in temporary delusion. Now I see that you have found the right track again. What about the Afshar's blog - I AM NOT BANNED! I could post on the blog from almost any I.P. address that I want, and Afshar cannot do anything to prevent this. However it is my personal will not to post on Afshar's blog. I do not offend Afshar directly as he does offend me because my academic position in the University and my status of medical doctor do not permit me to behave like that. From Afshar I have heard to be crackpot, having brain disorder, etc. .. If you check below his reply you will see that he does not understand momentum in QM, but I will not be his teacher. If you [Carl] want to discuss something with me, check my Wikipedia information for contact. I am quiting this endless discussion. Danko Georgiev MD 04:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Heisenberg's principle? 

message: Dear Looper, your explanation above is certainly messed, because you misunderstood the meaning of negative measurement. I have NEVER said that I observe the quantum amplitude [q-wave in popular sense] I have ALWAYS said that what you measure is probability distribution. I do not observe at the wires zero quantum amplitude, I observe zero light intensity, which is zero photons [real probability distribution]. But when you observe zero light intensity, you actually measure the photon's wavelength and energy, so you know that all photons that pass nearby but you do not catch with your wire detector have pricesely determined energy. So it is as if you have measured all the photons, so all photons at that point are measured/collapsed in basis energy. Now, since at the wires you make measurement in basis energy, so you get the result of the photons wavelength \lambda but you have not measured in basis time [which is non-commuting with energy], so the photon remains in superposition in basis time! i.e. each photon has passed through both pinholes. At the detectors the photons come already in collapsed energy basis - that is you know its energy - but since you do not know the length of its time travel each photon is at both detectors. The subsequent collapse of the photon at one of the detectors does not tell you through which pinhole the photon has passed, so the probability distribution of photons [light intensity] is such of "no which way" measurement i.e. the photon arrives in coherent state at the detectors. Since at the wires you have "no which way" measurement and at the detecors you have "no which way" measurement then you make twice "no which way" measurement - so no problem. The fact that after you collapse the photon at one of the detectors and you know at which detector the photon now is, does not extract retrospectively the "time travel" - you know that the photon is at detecor X, but you do not know WHEN the photon arrived there! In this sense the second measurement is in "position basis" but again in "energy basis" - you collapse twice - you know the energy of the photon, and you know at which detector it is, but you do not know the photon's direction of momentum, so you do not know from which pinhole it came from, nor you know when it came there, thus actually it remains in superposition of time and direction of momentum. The measurement postulate says "If you make the same measurement sufficiently fast you will get the same result", so you measure in basis energy [at wires] and in basis position [at detectors], but twice you do not have measurements in basis time and momentum [its direction]. So twice you measure in NOT basis time. Afshar believes that there is conservation of momentum and quotes some wrong papers from early times when complementarity and QM was not settled on firm fundament. So he had the chance to show that the image plane is not necessary revealing which way information, but instead of this correct interpretation, he produced the pseudo-scientific "Afshar's interpretation" where he took the Nobel prize of Einstein. Danko Georgiev MD 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Looper - Negative measurement does not measure q-amplitudes! 

message: One more add to my detailed exposition above - I suggest where Afshar manipulated the data = conscious fraud?! Well, he used apodized functions to pass only the central maximum at the detectors (deleting the higher order Airy disc pattern!). As I said in case where you have which way info the maximum as the higher order Airy disc pattern will produce a picture different from the one where you measure the wavelength directly [like the no which way one]. If you see figure 8 of Afshar's preprint  the data of the first which way experiment have different intensity of the central maximum and the case when there are two pinholes open the central maximum is lower and the pinhole intensity seems spread wider. Of course if the higher order Airy disc pattern were there the two pictures would be too different, so Afshar's fraud wouldn't work. But Afshar cleverly removed this "bad result" by apodization. Now for non-experienced reader it may look like that fig 8a is like the fig 8c, but this is not so. If you had the whole picture considering as I explained above that in one of the cases you measure the wavelength precisely [no which way] you will have coherent light and monohromatic image, while in the case with which way info [i.e. one slit closed] you no more be sure of exact coherence of the light [regardless of the fact that it is emitted from laser] so you will have not exact monochromatic light, but wider spectrum of energies [superposition of wavelengths!]. I hope finally you can start to think seriously on the subject, a forget about "popular wordings". Please write down clear statements, not metaphysical rumbling. Danko Georgiev MD 13:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Apodization (as any competent optical physicist knows) is a common technique used in optics and it has absolutely no bearing on loss of which-way information as emplyed in my experiment. One can alternatively use Gaussians slits, which ensures lack of extra diffraction bands, etc. I suggest to Danko to stop using the word "fraud" so liberally. It might land him in a court for libel, not to mention taint his academic record.-- Prof. Afshar 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Dear Afshar, you still did not catch the main point. If you measure which way information you may have greater uncertainty in photon's wavelength, and if you do not measure the which way information, you will measure more precisely the wavelength by the place of the interference fringes. Since the Airy pattern is very sensitive to the wavelength of the photon, see wikipedia entry on airy disc then by deleting the airy disc pattern you ERASE the evidence that in the second case when you open both slits, the experiment has changed from "which way" into "no which way". I suppose you did not like the "little" differences that you possibly observed so you decided to apodize the images just for "fitting" your expectations. If you did not do that, then you have done error, because you overlooked the dependence of the Airy discs pattern on the photon's wavelength, so you cannot say that in both experiments the certainty of photon's wavelength is the same. So this is not just loophole, this is the loophole that unmakes your interpretation. Danko Georgiev MD 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danko, I agree with Prof Afshar about the making of accusations. Also, this WP talk page is not an appropriate forum to debate theory. I very strongly recommend that you find some other place to have these discussions. This all has been going on far far too long.  linas 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Linas and Prof. Afshar about this. What is the point in positioning, (ad nauseum), Afshar as a "fraud". There is absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Zilch. Indeed Afshar's experiment is consistent with a range of experiments by many people (including Einstein) that attempt to poke holes in quantum theory. That's a good thing. Not a bad thing. Carl. 
Yes, good thing is to have discussion, and good thing is to reply to everyone who is interested in the topic. This is scientific behavior. But when somebody poses clear question, and you consciously avoid discussion this is a bad thing. Danko Georgiev MD 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Prof. Afshar is under no obligation to discuss or defend his thesis to you or others. The scientific process works by you making your hypothesis and then supplying the evidence for the hypothesis. It is then up to the rest of the community to accept your hypothesis or not to accept it.  This is an opt-in process.  Nobody has to believe in the results.  Nobody is under obligation to defend it or to reject it, not even Prof. Afshar.  That is a very religious point of view to demand him to face up to an inquisition.  Danko - if you do not like the results of the Afshar experiment, then write up your hypothesis and the empirical evidence supporting it and submit it for publication.  Put it up on a website.  For example, what is your evidence that V = 1?  Please stop the incessant whining and personal crusading.  Thanks.  Forkhume 08:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Dear Carl, 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! This reasoning was used both by Bohr and Einstein to establish which-way information. Also, I invite you to continue your discusion in my weblog (as you have) and not here. I will shortly reply to your comments in my weblog. Please heed the statement at the top of this page. Regards. Prof. Afshar 22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Dear Afshar,  POSSIBLY YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUPERPOSITION OF QUBIT MOMENTA? If so, it is very bad for you. This elementary error is result of classical thinking, and IF you ask me, I can send you some papers published in Physical Reviews explaining how the idea of momentum in quantum mechanics should be correctly understood. You may have superposition of momenta, and interference of momenta, and for 18 years of studying physics you SHOULD know that simple fact. Danko Georgiev MD 07:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apodized functions as CONSCIOUS FRAUD!