Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 26

message: The following point is missing it's counterpoint:
:Niels Bohr stated "an adequate tool for a complementary way of description is offered precisely by the quantum-mechanical formalism"[11]
:* If the photons in the experiment obey the precise mathematical laws of quantum mechanics (the formalism), how can Bohr's principle of complementarity be violated by the experiment?[13][14][15]
The counterpoint, if I recall, was something like this (somewhat elaborated):
:* The experiment's obedience to the formalism can simply throw into question Bohr's claim that the formalism is an "adequate tool for a complementarity way of description". There is no great logical flaw here. Bohr may be just wrong. Basically, if the formalism is not violated by the experiment, yet complementarity is (if it is), then Bohr's claim is just incorrect.
If this counterpoint is to remain removed then the original point should also be removed as the structure of the ongoing debate section is meant to be, and remains introduced as having a point/counterpoint structure.
--Carl A Looper 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with this, it has been my position since I first entered into this debate.  Either there should be both points or neither.  I would vote for neither as together they simply cancel eachother out. Dndn1011 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Carl and Dndn1011. Objectivity is served either by removal of the critical quotes, or by addition of the rebuttals to those critiques. From the point of view of Encyclopedic styles, however, it would be best not to have any quotes, and simply cite the ref.s papers, etc for both the critiques and rebuttals. -- Prof. Afshar 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Afshar. For anyone who recalls the origin of this section it was on the insistence of one editor, that certain points be made (in direct conflict with the opinion of other editors) that necessitated, as an alternative solution, the addition of the counterpoints. If the counterpoints are subsequently removed, so too should be the original points. I vote we just remove the whole section. It's hardly representative of the wider debate. (I still very much like the introductory remark) --Carl A Looper 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Originally this section was called 'Critiques' and in order to attempt to make progress in spite of this other editor's obstructions, renamed the section "On Going Debate", and the idea was to present a concise summary of the debate within it.  This never went entirely to plan, as we can see, because it still remained an unbalanced section. Dndn1011 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do NOT delete. The segment explicitly states that Bohr says the PC is tight to mathematial formalism. See my comment below on Afshar view of PC vs. HUR. If Bohr says that one first must disprove the math formalism, you cannot attribute some "wrong interpretation" to Bohr. Bohr is not alive to defend himself, so this quotation is sufficiently explicit. So from this quoation follows that Afshar MUST disprove the formalism, if he does not so, then he don't have rights to claim he has disproved Bohr. Danko Georgiev MD 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not, and cannot, have any opinion in this, as I am neutral. But it does seem (though I am not an expert) that the "counterpoint" does not directly refute Bohr's point, rather, it establishes conditions under which Bohr's claim could be shown to be false. This is a neutral, independent observation, and I support neither side. Sdirrim 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first statement basically says "Complementarity is an essential part of the formalism, and since the experiement obeys the formalismn, it can't violate complementarity".  The second statement says (or should say) that complementarity can be violated by an experiment that otherwise obeys the formalism.  The second statement is correct and not the first, because if an experiment was found that showed a violation, the whole of the quantum mechanical formalism is not rendered invalid by it.  Bohr simply presented an argument that suggested that because we can never observe complementarity being violated, we never need to face that paradox and have to try to explain it.  In short Bohr was saying "there is nothing to see here, lets move on".  His basis for this is the idea that what you can't observe does not matter.  If you cannot observe a paradox, there is no paradox.  Afshar's experiment may in fact show that it is possible to observe the paradox.  If this is true, then the formalism is still valid, but only up to a point.  It means that it is incomplete because it can not explain the paradox although it can adequately explain most other experimental observations.  The first statement by itself is meaningless.  It is in effect saying "Because Bohr was right it is impossible for complementarity to be violated."  This is not a sensible thing to have in the article, in my opinion. Dndn1011 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Piece #3 

message: Dear Carlson, you started this proposal that the sourses MUST BE notable. Now Afshar misrepresents your proposal as fact and derives wrong conclusions as always. So please everybody click on the link for RELIABLE SOURCES, and stop this nonsense for notability, novelness, and how famous is scientist. All the arguments for deletion of disputed fragment #4 violated Wikipedia policy Danko Georgiev MD 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it." Danko Georgiev MD 08:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, that seems to be the basis of almost all of the arguments against "Disputed Piece #4". The issue was essentially whether to consider ArXiv a reliable source, and if it was not, whether to remove the references as they would have no reliable sources. However, I think that there was inadvertant confusion of "notable" and "reliable". Sdirrim 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ArXiv can't be judged to be a reliable source or not en block, you have to look the the author(s) and judge whether they are reliable sources on a particular area of expertise.  Bill Unruh, for example, is a reliable source in the field of quantum optics, on ArXiv or elsewhere. --Michael C. Price talk 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill Unruh is an expert in the field. The problem with sources such as ArXiv is that someone under the name of Bill Unruh, or Bill Unruh himself, could post a paper containing complete bogus. Also, it would remain there because there is no peer review, and because only the author can actually remove the paper. Sure, a moderator could "embargo" a paper. But, as someone supporting ArXiv said, "This does not mean that the work is peer-reviewed". Now, from Wikipedia:Attribution: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process". If an article or paper can be made publicly available without first being peer-reviewed or fact-checked, then it is no better than a questionable resource. Again, from [Wikipedia:Attribution]]: "Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves". I am not specifically referring to anyone's references or arguments, I am just discussing ArXiv's reliablility in general. Sdirrim 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmph.  I note that [Wikipedia:Attribution]] also says When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications, so Unruh counts as a reliable source, on ArXiv or elsewhere.--Michael C. Price talk 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I absolutely agree with Michael. Personally, even if Unruh's work was scribbled on a torn piece of tissue, I would still consider it a reliable source! I think in case of Unruh his very name should suffice to make his work not subject to Wiki OR rules. BTW/ One  CANNOT post a bogus paper on arXiv using someone else’s name, because Cornell University admins. check the author’s affiliations and e-mail routes before they post it. Nonetheless, it is the author’s reputation that makes the arXiv papers notable, especially if the expert happens to have published numerous papers on the subject in the reputable peer-reviewed journals in the past, which is definitely the case with Prof. Unruh. -- Prof. Afshar 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm delighted to see that Afshar and myself agree in this subject.  --Michael C. Price talk 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable <math>\neq</math> [[No_original_research#Reliable_sources|Reliable]]