Talk:Double-slit experiment/Archive 4

message: I've added a link to a pretty good analysis of Afshar's work to the page.  It is written in layman's terms.  Basically, since the wires are thin, the light is mostly particles as it hits the lens and the wires don't make the light very "wavy".  Interesting discussion there; I think it's worth having here just as Afshar's experiment is worth having here.  Samboy 08:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Samboy, the link you have added is that of Lubos Motl (a colleague of mine at Harvard), whose Wikipedia user name is Lumidek. Please take a look at the above Nov. 27 discussion on this page where link [1] and [2] are in fact the same link you have provided. I met with Lubos and discussed our differences. In fact it was him who suggested that I write an article for Wikipedia, which I intend to do soon. Briefly, he must meet the same challenge as Aurelien mentioned in the pervious post, as his argument in his link is NOT rigorously worked out. Please take a look at my weblog to see my detailed response. Therefore, I have moved the link here, as this particualr argument was already settled back in November. Afshar 08:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way to handle this, at this point, is to place all of the information about your (Afshar's) experiment available in a single page and simply link to it from other pages.  I certaintly think your experiment is (to put it mildly) notable enough to merit its own page.  I also agree that there is going to be a lot of controversey about this discovery; any new discovery in Science is met with great skepticism.  Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics, after all.  On the other hand, this skepticism is healthy because many seemingly great discoveries are later on sown to be nothing; Cold fusion being a well-known example.  The fact that this experiment has generated so much controversey shows how notable it is.  I think it is best for all sides to be heard.  And I certaintly don't see any retraction from Lumidek about his blog entry! Samboy 09:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Samboy, I do not shy away from controversy in the least bit, and like you, believe it is a healthy aspect of the scientific process--as long as the participants are both objective and knowledgeable in the field. I appreciate your prudent act of getting a separate page started. However, I do not think it should turn into a forum. There already are hundreds of fora (including my own) where discussions on the experiment have been raging for months. As for Lobus' retraction, suffice it to say that he has toned down his comments considerably (actually, changed his weblog comments after our meeting) and as you can see in his discussion there, he admits that "Shahriar may have found a statement due to Bohr in the libraries or archives that was proven incorrect by this experiment." The statement he refers to is in fact the very description of Complementarity in Bohr's own words (published in the journal Nature), and personally verified by the eminent historian of physics Prof. Gerald Holton of Harvard. That is good enough for me! Afshar 09:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new page will minimize the kinds of conflicts.  I have now reinstated this link at the bottom of the new Afshar experiment page, along with three blog entries with a more positive viewpoint on your experiment.  I think this is far more NPOV than just a link to Motl's blog entry.  And, yes, just as evolutionists have to put up with nonsense about creationism on the evolution page, we have to look at dissenting views here too. Samboy 10:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is more factual this way. Sounds pretty fair! Afshar 11:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Let me add one more comment. Using the name of Harvard University may certainly be appealing, but it can also be used as in . Don't get me wrong, I think that Viktor Kozeny, the founder of the Harvard funds, is a very bright and in some sense nice guy! But on the other hand, Harvard funds is not related to Harvard university. Shahriar, I am not sure whether it is quite an honest and scientific approach if you repeat so many times that you're Harvard faculty, especially if it does not seem to be true. If you want to see the list of Harvard physics faculty, open . Did they forget you?  --Lumidek 19:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Lumidek, where have I ever said that I am a Harvard Faculty?! You MUST produce evidence for such a claim if you care about your credibility with the public. This is not the first time you have attributed inaccurate statements to me, some of which I have responded to in your Blog. You make rash and irresponsible comments like this all the time, as others (whom I will not mention here) have also complained. I have every legal right to use Harvard's name as the place where the experiment was actually performed and announced while I was a Research Scholar. So, I kindly ask you to stop this kind of ridiculous personal attacks before it gets too ugly. It is really unbecoming of a Harvard "faculty" member. --Afshar 20:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Shahriar, your question "where I ever said that I am a Harvard faculty" is unfortunately very easy to answer. If you look in the second paragraph of this section, you will find your text "Dear Samboy, the link you have added is that of Lubos Motl (a colleague of mine at Harvard), whose Wikipedia user name is...". Also, the very first sentence of the article Afshar experiment says "In March 2004, Shahriar S. Afshar announced at Harvard University the..." which undoubtedly creates the (wrong) impression that Harvard University has something to do with your statements. Moreover, you repeatedly call your experiment "the Harvard experiment". No actual scientist from Harvard would use the name "Harvard" even with 10% frequency of yours. If you want to go far enough and think that you have the right to call your experiment "the Harvard experiment", we may try to ask the responsible people at Harvard. Incidentally, the authentic URL of the list of Research Scholars at Harvard is here: , not at Google. --Lumidek 20:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Lobus, we were both Research Scholars while I was there, that makes us colleagues. You have called me a colleague in the past yourself, and if you have changed your opinion on that it is your choice. By the "Harvard experiment" I have meant to distinguish between the high flux investigation that was performed at Harvard and the single photon version performed at Rowan university. If it makes you feel better, simply replace "the high flux experiment conducted and verified at Harvard" with "Harvard experiment". As for associating my work with Harvard, the "responsible people" have already clarified the legal boundaries in a written document provided to my legal team at IRIMS.-- Afshar 20:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Shahriar, if were were both research scholars in 2003, then you can call us "former colleagues", but not "colleagues". On my blog, sorry to tell you, I used the word "colleague" as a kind of joke - I am often using this word for crackpots - various crackpots who want to claim that they falsified theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, or perhaps energy conservation or anything like that - to point out that they definitely consider themselves to be our colleagues which I find entertaining - as long as it remains on the level of jokes. I don't believe that you were allowed to use Harvard's trademarks for your experiments. Incidentally, if you search for the word "colleague" in , you will see that I used exactly the same word for Viktor Kozeny - and my guess is that you will understand that it's not quite serious. --Lumidek 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Lubos, in that case I am sorry I took you seriously! Only time will tell who is more entertaining...--Afshar 21:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Shahriar, I am happy that we can end this discussion with a happy end - the time will tell (if it has not already told). I agree with your whole last comment, except for your spelling of my first name, and I wish you happy holidays. --Lumidek 21:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've added a link to a pretty good analysis of Afshar's work