Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 24

message: Please note that you cannot "vote yourself chairman" as you declared above. Please desist immediately in this uncollegial attitude; there is no basis in any wikipedia policy for this.--CSTAR 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was tongue in cheek.  You obviosuly missed the point that by saying I vote myself chairman, I am actually saying something that is impossible.  How can I vote for myself?  What I am actually saying is that I am taking on the role, because no one else is.  In fact there is a basis.  It is called concensus.  We will see what happens.  People can either go with my attempt to assist the reaching of a concensus, or they can choose to ignore me.  I am hoping however that people will give my plan a go.  It is a simple plan.  I will try to organise the discussions so that we can actually arrive at a good article.  It is clear the anarchy we have experienced so far on this has achieved very little.  Perhaps it is time to organise the discussion.  The precident for that is common sense.  Dndn1011 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not pretending to be anything.  I am merely trying to organise the disucssion.  That is what I am doing.  All I have done is declared my intent.  My appologies if you can't handle my humor.  I will continue my attempts to mediate regardless. Additionally level of physics expertise is not the point here.  What is required is someone who can mediate and be neutral.  Since no one else has been trying to do that I am.  If someone else is more qualified and is willing to spend the time let them.  Until then, I am attempting it.Dndn1011 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote yourself chairman? 

message: I would suggest that we should remove the quotations from the specific critques section as they unbalance the article.  We can place actual points of debate in the ongoing debate section, where a blanced view can be presented.  This would tidy the article up and reduce the major areas of contention to one section (Ongoing debate). Dndn1011 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the quotations.  The whole argument hinges on what various critics think about Afshar's experiment and what Bohr thought about complementarity, and some of the quotes are illuminating on both those scores. I agree about merging the two sections together. --Michael C. Price talk 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we keep them they are going to have to be balanced, this has proved difficult.  Frankly in the past you have dismissed any counter arguments out of hand becuase you do personally not agree with them, which is in part how we ended up in this mess.   I am not the only one to have noted your difficulty with remaining neutral and with not  verging on OR in your interpretations.  An example is the claim that Unruh's experiment is not equivalent.  This is not just my point of view there are others (including Afhsar) that believe this to be the case.  The danger with presenting too much detail on only one side only in the article is that it will become biased.  I argue it is better to say too little, than say  more and be biased.  We should provide the references and allow people to make up their own minds, or present a few details in balance. But perhaps first we should wait for Afhsar to clarify what his claims actually are.  It may be we can lose some counter arguments because they may not be pertinent to Afshar's interpretation, or the experiment. Dndn1011 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure my opionion of you and your behaviour is as flattering as yours is of mine.  However I should have thought a self-appointed chairman would rise above these things?  As for whether we can lose some counter-arguments, well that is always possible, but each one will have to argued for on a case-by-case basis.--Michael C. Price talk 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merely stated the truth as I see it.  A mediator has sometimes to do that.  But I don't put myself above you.  Should I lapse into bias, I am sure you will present a coherent argument to wake me up to it, and I will be grateful to you. Dndn1011 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just bear in mind that I also "have merely stated the truth as I see it" and we'll get along just fine. I inserted some of the quotes to avoid the accusation that I was inserting OR.  --Michael C. Price talk 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough :).  Now which quotes are you refering to? Dndn1011 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't tell then I must be doing my job well :-) --Michael C. Price talk 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er no I have no idea about context.  "I inserted some of the quotes to avoid the accusation that I was inserting OR".  When?  Are you talking about originally? Or was this a recent addition?  Or in general?  Am I supposed to go through the history to find out which quotes you claim responsibility for? I imagine that it was just a passing comment anyway, so never mind.Dndn1011 01:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the flippant (although half-serious) comment.  I added the quote from Bohr about the formalism being an adequate tool for a complementarity description.  Also the quotes from the critics to the effect that the experiment violates neither the formalism nor complementarity. --Michael C. Price talk 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have already answered this. Dndn1011 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Dear Dino, Mike has inserted the quotations in order to be objective.  When I say that Afshar wanted to take back the Nobel Prize of Einstein, and put quotation saying in 1-to-1 wording exactly what I say this is objectivity. So all the quotations are to make the whole article as objective as possible. This is not OR; but when you do not provide quotations, but put only your understanding of what the others have said then you are making OR. So Afshar accuses Bohr, and in order to present objectively why Bohr is wrong or not one needs quotations of Bohr, on which basis you can accuse Bohr, or not. By the way the article of Afshar experiment is almost satisfying in its current form since the main points are clearly stated: [1] Afshar's experiment is well described, [2] Afshar proposes his "own" interpretation, [3] the majority of physicists are not supporting Afshar's "paradoxical" interpretation, and [4] there are two types of objections so far. This is all that must be said. Well, one might ask which one of the two types of objections is the valid one, yet you know my answer, and in order one to be capable to write this final conclusion for the whole article he must be expert in physics. I have voted for prof. Qureshi to insert this final math sketch, yet most of you disagreed. Why? Afshar has only 1 paper published on a single topic, and in Wikipedia has only 1 edit on the same experiment, and in the yellow press he speaks about 1 thing "how great is Afshar's experiment and how it declares the Einstein's idea of photon dead". Compare this to prof. Qureshi's work - numerous publications of foundational issues of QM, pointing out inconsistencies in other published work, and finally but not last has better mathematical understanding than all the participants in this discussion including me. If one is to vote for chairman or arbiter I would like to propose prof. Qureshi. Danko Georgiev MD 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Danko for your comments, unfortunately you you are like the proverbial bull in a china shop.  You make some valid points but sure the validity and neutrality of each point should be agreed upon. You are also ignoring my suggestion of taking each contentious point and putting them each in their own heading.  As such I can't spend any more time wading through all you points that may seem so obvious to you, but the point of an article is to convey them effectively.  Everyone agrees the current article is a mess.  I am just trying to assist the remedy of that. You could try working as part of a team instead of imposing your view. Dndn1011 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be very happy if someone else that had the ability to be neutral and mediate would do this.  Despite what some people say I have yet to have seen anyone here with a neutral perspective.  Some people question my neutrality and yet I have been asking questions, that is all.  I have not been making claims, just questioning.  I hope you can see that I am attempting to be pragmatic now as well as questioning.  I still maintain however that quotes which are not directly countering or correctly countering Afshar's claims should either be present combined with their rebuttle or not present at all. Dndn1011 13:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific Critiques section