Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 4

message: Dear CSTAR
Please do not delete entries that conform to the encyclopedic style! My entry is almost 1:1 taken from a lecture by Bob I. Eisenstein, Professor of Physics at Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  so it is real science, not like Drezet's pseudo-scientific speculations. So I try to make the article more encyclopedic and scientific, and you delete my entry. Before you delete the entry, please be informed IF it is true or not. If you don't have knowledge in physics, ask someone who is professional physicist.
If you need to read the perfect lecture presented by prof. Eisenstein see 
Best,
Danko
:: (a) Said "encyclopedic" entries are in powerpoint. 'nuff said.
::(b) Please do not make personal attacks. 
::--CSTAR 20:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To CSTAR 

message: Please do NOT remove the POV tag. This article contains pseudo-scientific information, so the reader must know about the RISK of reading it.Danko_Georgiev_MD
::Fellas, please sign your posts! --Reuben 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do NOT remove the POV tag 

message: There are problems with the theory section. I tried to clean it up, but promptly got tangled. I'll try to fix it in time, but any discussion here would help clarify what the intent of this section was.  linas 02:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory section was appearently added by anonymous user User:143.50.61.66 around 28 June 2005, but no matter how I try to fix it, it just seems broken. I'm punting for now. linas 04:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So... anyone care to help fix, or at least discuss, the theory section of this article? linas 15:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the theory section 

message: I moved the following statement by User:HMonroe to the discussion page, because (1) it does not belong in the main page. (2) it is entirely unsubstantiated as far as the sockpuppet allegation is concerned.
Prof. Afshar plays an active role in editing this article, under his own name and under pseudonyms (sock puppets), which undermines its objectivity.
Here's my suggestion to Hunter Monroe if he is indeed not a sockpuppet himself: Reveal your true identity or send me an e-mail and explain what you find to be wrong with my experiment or my interpretation. My e-mail address is: afshar@rowan.edu
Alternatively, you can write up a critique like other academics and post it at my blog, the arxiv, or your own web-page. I expect you to behave like a real scholar, rather than a prankster who abuses the free access to Wikipedia to push his/her agenda. What you are currently doing is entirely against scientific process of debate and exploration. You cannot stop truth from marching on. At best, you can slow its progress for a while, that is, to your own historic demise.--Afshar 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *No worries mate! I'll be back in Boston for a couple of weeks, maybe we can meet before you leave? Good luck with the move!--Afshar 05:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunter Monroe's deletion bid 

message: I recently marked this article as too technical, referring specifically to the "Theoretical" section. One would need a couple of years of college physics to understand it; I'm not all that sure that it is suitable WP material. Stifle 22:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP has about 10,000 articles on math and physics that require college degrees  in math or physics in order to be comprehended.  Based on this, I'll remove the tag.  Note, however, the theoretical section is broken, but that is a separate issue. (The total number of physics/math articles is displayed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity and is 12,023 as of right now. Try a few links, and you'll see that the majority are quite advanced.) linas 17:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical 

message: I've added an NPOV tag after noticing that the first paragraph states "Prof. Afshar plays an active role in editing this article.". --HappyCamper 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with the NPOV tag. I have offered to voice my views in the talk page and ask a neutral editor to edit the main article accordingly after we discuss it here. To start with, I take issue with the following subjective statement in the introduction: "the controversy has been mostly ignored within the mainstream academic physics community". This is in fact incorrect, and evidence to the contrary can be found by a simple search in the Google under "afshar experiment". Rarely has an experiment in quantum mechanics produced such tumult in academia as this experiment. I asked Linas to explain his reasoning to include the above statement (other than his own personal misgivings of the experiment) but have not received a response. There are other major problems with the article including the Overview, and the Theory section. But, I will hold on for now to see the kind of action Linas or other editors would take on the issue I have raised above. Looking forward to hearing from all interested Wikipedians. --Prof. Afshar 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change "the controversy has been mostly ignored within the mainstream academic physics community" to read "there has been very little published in professional physics journals on the experiment". (As far as I can tell, there has yet to be even one article published in a refereed physics journal). A google search reveals a variety of blogs. As far as I can tell, the "tumult" is more along the lines of irritation and disappointment that this is less of a "breakthrough" then was initally claimed.  linas 17:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are serious problems in the theory section. It was added by some anon editor, and is fundamentally incorrect as it stands.  If Prof. Afshar can discuss/outline an accetable set of equations, I can massage them into something appropriate for WP.  linas 17:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag