Talk:Afshar experiment

message: Hey, I'm back! Sorry about the absence, I've been busy. Didn't mean to make you all wait so long. Now, as I understand, Afshar made edts which have been reverted. Although he shouldn't of made the edit, I don't entirely blame him. It's frustrating when someone disappears without notice.
This whole process seems to be going nowhere, and the point-by-point system is not working. And yes, Danko is right, I do take offense at your statement. I realize you are frustrated, but excuse me for occasionally changing my mind. If I was to be so stubborn as to never change my mind on this article, then I would hardly be a decent mediator.
Now, as to the OR issue. With the "Specific Critiques" section, we are essentially saying "Some scientists disagree. For example, here is what Professor X has said about this." We are not saying "Some scientists disagree. For example, the arguments made by Professor X are completely true, undeniable, and totally disprove Professor Afshar." We are only stating two things as fact in the "Specific Critiques" section. We are stating that some scientists (specific scientists, not just 'some scientists') disagree, and that they have made the following arguments. We are not stating that those arguments are correct, peer-reviewed, or that they prove Afshar wrong. We are only stating that these people have made these arguments against Professor Afshar's interpretation. It brings to mind the legal disclaimer one hears so often: "The viewpoints contained herein are the views of the individuals that expressed them, and do not necessarily represent the views of FOX Networks or its employees."
In terms of reliability of sources, we do not need to show that the "Specific Critiques" are correct. We only need to show that those statements and ideas really were expressed by the same people we cite. It doesn't matter if the places Bill Unruh or any of the other people made their remarks or published their articles were peer-reviewed. It only matters if we can verify that yes, Bill Unruh really did say/publish that, and not someone using his name. 
Note that this only applies to the "Specific Critiques" section.
I will be here as often as I can, however, I may not be online every day. Please, bear with me and play nice while I'm gone. If you feel that I might not see a specific comment on the talk page, please, leave me a message on my talk page.
One last thing: Please, do not post comments on this discussion page saying "Mediator, do this." "Mediator, I'm obviously right. Enact my suggestion now!" It annoys me, and it makes me no more likely to do what you want. This kind of comment assumes that I will automatically side with whoever wrote it, ignore the ongoing debate and any other viewpoints and do whatever you want. It is like standing up in the middle of a trial and telling the jury "This has gone long enough. Please, end the trial and rule in my favor now." I am not naming names, although it seems almost everyone has made some number of these comments. Again, if you want to make sure I get a message, post it on my talk page. Sdirrim 04:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm back. 

message: People involved in the discussion here might be interested to know that there now exists a wiki entry on Popper's experiment.
:Thanks Tabish. Enjoyed the article very much. Will discuss further there. --Carl A Looper 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popper's experiment 

message: Hello,
As far as I understand, critics claim this experiment does not give details about which pinhole the photon went through and therefor does not give which-way information, thus the experiment is false.
Couldn't electrons be used instead of photons, this way one separate electron can be fired at a time, hitting only one detector (giving which-way information). When repeated a million time, we could see that the 'grid' has had no effect and thereby proving that the electron has also acted as a wave.
I believe this setup would be superior to Afshar's idea, yet I could not think of a proper replacement for the lens which would need to defract the electron to the detectors.
Could any real physicists comment on my idea.
Thank you,
LAUBO 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having no which-way information in this experiment has nothing to do with the particles being photons or electrons. You will ALWAYS get only a single click. However, the question is whether a particular detector clicking, in the case of both the slits being open, gives one information about which slit the particle passed through? Because closing one slit leads to only one particular detector clicking, one tends to erroneously associate each detector with a respective slit, even when both the slits are open. A careful analysis will show you that the answer is no. A simple way to see it is the following. Firstly, in quantum mechanics, particles obey schrodinger eqn, hence there is a wave-function associated with them, which makes even electrons behave like waves. Now if the interference is there, all the particles are coming from the bright fringes (dark fringes transmit no particles, by definition). Experimentally afshar blocks the dark fringes, so even experimentally we are sure that particles do not pass through the dark fringes. Bright fringes are formed by equal contribution from both the slits (what we call constructive interference in classical wave optics). Once the contributions from the two slits are added up, the which-way information is lost for good! However, the wave-function of the particle at the bright fringes is such that the particle has equal probability of going to either of the two detectors. But now the which-way information is not there, and the detector click doesn't tell us which-slit the particle came from. This argument is exactly equivalent to the one which Unruh gives in his different thought experiment with mirrors in an interferometer.--Tabish q 19:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Tabish, PLEASE do not misinterprete Unruh, and do NOT speak about Georgiev's argument applied to Unruh's setup. Indeed in my analysis is where I show there is no which way, Unruh does not show it. Unruh believes there is which way information and interference at the same time! Please read carefully, before you post. P.S. In my recent paper I made 1-to-1 mapping with your waves for Afshar's setup. Simply I have expanded the canceled sinh terms in the form of exponential functions, then simplify the algebra, so I have recovered 8 waves. Then I map the 8 waves (4 cosh waves and 4 sinh waves) from your calculation with the 8 waves in Georgiev's description of Unruh's setup. PLEASE note that the setup decribed by me, is composed of two Mach-Zehnder interferometers, so basicly I even obtain exactly the opposite "clicking" of detectors (compared to Unruh's original description) when one puts obstacles on interferometer paths. So Unruh is completely wrong on everything, except the fact that the so-called by me "Unruh's setup" is equivalent to Afshar's setup. My recent work is the first clear 1-to-1 mapping, and will appear online soon. Best, Danko Georgiev MD 07:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear LAUBO, it is enough if you understand mathematics to understand the correct description of the experiment and why there is no which way information even if there is no grid or obstacles on photon paths. Unfortunately, most of wiki-editors involved here and are "slaves" of authority and are "afraid" to think with their own head. Also, strikingly Art Carlson, possibly tried to understand Unruh's setup, then reached the correct conclusion that I have published, and mis-attributed it to Unruh. (Carlson and Tabish, should be careful when they speak about Unruh's work, and also better be acquainted with my work, because I personally don't like attributing my analysis to Unruh.) A nice introduction and full explanation of what is going on with 8 interfering waves is given in my published work Georgiev (2007) PP vol.2: 97-103. All issues of Progress In Physics here. Unruh's reply Unruh (2007) PP vol.3: 27 unfortunately contains many errors, but at least says clearly that there is both interference and which way information - I hope this is good information for Art and Tabish!!! My reply [comming soon]. Danko Georgiev MD 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Danko, unfortunately, you are reading between the lines that Unruh wrote. Let me first quote Unruh in his comment on your paper,  However, he then implies that I hold certain positions about the interpretation of the experiment, interpretations which I neither hold nor are contained in my description.   Unruh does NOT say that there is interference and which-way information at the same time. What he says amounts to the following. Without blocking the dark fringe path (or in Afshar's experiment, without putting the wire grid), you cannot say that there is interference. Interference is not an abstract thing, it is a measured property. If you do not block the dark fringe, you CANNOT  claim that it is dark, and that there are no photons passing through. So, you cannot invoke any argument of which-way information getting lost. So, in this case, there is which-way information, but there is no interference. (remember, this is Unruh's view I am talking about, not mine)  If you do block the dark fringe (introduce the wire-grid in Afshar's experiment), you are in effect recording interference. But once you have blocked the dark fringe, Unruh argues, you can no longer claim that there is which-way information. Which-way information is lost. So, in this case there IS interference, but there is NO which-way information. So you see, nowhere does Unruh claim that there is which-way information and interference at the same time. Now let me explain where I disagree with Unruh. Unruh asserts that IF you do NOT block the dark fringe, you do not KNOW that it is dark. And hence you cannot assume that photons do not pass through that region. I believe that if you have blocked a path and checked that no photons come that way, and that it is really dark, even after removing the block, you should be able to say that the path is still dark. This is just common logic: if you have checked by putting a block that no photons go a particular way, why should photons suddenly start going that way, just because you have removed the block? This is the ONLY essential difference between Unruh's and my view. --Tabish q 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Tabish, I have personal correspondantion with Unruh since 2004, and I know word-by-word ALL his published sources. Unruh SAYS there is interference, and which way, but ONLY measuring the interference destroys the which way information. I have explicitly formulated elsewhere in my work - KNOWLEDGE of interference ITSELF erases the which way information. And the knowledge is equivalent with the MATHEMATICAL description of the setup. If you that there is interefence you don't need to measure it. Unruh is wrong, you misattribute words to Unruh that he never said. Please be sure you are well acquainted with Unruh's claims before you speak on his behalf. p.s. LET US TALK ON UNRUH'S INTERFEROMETER TALK PAGE or by e-mail.Danko Georgiev MD 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Danko, this is too fine a point to get into an argument about. What I have said has also been cross-checked by personal communication with Unruh. Please keep cool, and realize what the difference is between yours and Unruh's point of view. You say, "the knowledge is equivalent with the MATHEMATICAL description of the setup". However, Unruh, like many others, believes that there cannot be any knowledge without measuring. Throughout his article, he has only talked of measuring interference and measuring which-way information. However, I believe that mathematically, existence of which-way information is incompatible with the existence of interference (this is what I have shown in my work). But if I say  that Unruh is claiming the opposite, then I am putting words in his mouth. He only talks about measuring, and drawing conclusions from measurements. --Tabish q 07:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Dear Tabish, I am cool! All these anti-realist errors are widely commented in my forthcomming PP reply. Yes, mathematically interference and which way are incompatible, this is what YOU say, and what I say. It is NONSENSE = language confusion = pseudoscience to say "there are no photons (mathematically)" and then "but I have to measure my mathematics" to confirm it. This is to say "2+2 = 4 (mathematically)", but "unless I measure that 2+2 = 4 physically for everyindividual case I am not sure in the math theorem"! Do you see that one of camps will be a very confused and ignorant in mathematics? I will confess publicly that I am wrong, once one finds error in my maths. Unruh posted clearly "no photons", I am not putting "words in his mouth". p.s. I decided not to send you my article before publication, please wait 1 week, it will possibly appear online by then. Best, Danko Georgiev MD 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Tabish, here is my official reply to Unruh. 
      Georgiev DD. Exact Mapping of Quantum Waves between Unruh's and Afshar's Setup (Reply to W. Unruh). Progress In Physics 2007; 3: 28-33.
Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which-Way problem solved 

message: Hello,
I would like to ask some details about this experiment. I need it for my own use, but I also believe it is essential for an encyclopedia to have this data.
*What are the precise dimension of the experiment? - lens at 4.2 m after the slits, image at 5.58 m after the slits.
*How big are the pinholes? - 0.25 mm
*How far appart are they from eachother? - 2 mm
*How big is the grid, lines and spaces between? - you can calculate the interference pattern by yourself at 4.2 m after the slit, take the photon wavelength of 650 nm.
*What type of lens? - doesn't matter
*What type of detector? - doesn't matter
Thank you,
LAUBO 09:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need this information, why don't you read Afshar's article? --Art Carlson 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In the second paragraph of the introduction, "a peer-reviewed article appeared in Foundations of Physics" is footnoted (note 1 of the references). Clicking on that link leads you to arXiv, where you can download a pdf version. Where did you run into trouble? --Art Carlson 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: this paper is the original one, from where I have taken the details of the lens setup reported in New Scientist. Danko Georgiev MD 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiment Details 

message: What is the status of the MedCab case here?  Do you need another mediator or can I close the case?  --Medcabemail 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal case status? 

message: The "Specific critiques" section should not use indent, it makes paragraphs look like quotes. GregorB (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that whereas the critiques section goes into detail quoting all over the place, the section in support only provides links. This would seem unbalanced to me. Irontightarguments (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: BTW the sources that are claimed to support Afshar do not seem to.  O'Hara's for example.  I can't see where it says Afshar's interpretation is correct; it is offering another interpretation. --Michael C. Price talk 16:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Upon examination only John Cramer seems to support Afshar, so I've moved the other links.  I've also made their abstracts visible. --Michael C. Price talk 17:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: I am not Afshar. Everytime somone supports afshar you call them Afshar. I have physics PhD and I live in Azerbaijn. People like Micael Price are the one that started false accounts to slander him. I like him necause he stood up for himself and his religion. Here is a quote from a facebook forum: "In the Harvard forum back in 2003, people would sign up for the science forum rapidly. There were many fake accounts that were traced back to several conspiracy skeptics that tried to discredit Afshar. This was back in the fall of 2003, I do believe. He was slandered for his Iranian decent more so than his actual experiment. People were trying to say that these people were paid by another scientist. In 2006, Bush enforced a law that you can't post on fake accounts or something to that effect and Harvard (after 3+ years) deleted these accounts. It was a big deal." I know some people were fired. So Price, be careful not to destroy his or your own reputation here by libelous accusations, you are not anon.85.132.47.9 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this response speaks for itself. No further comment required.--Michael C. Price talk 01:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you learned lesson.Thank you.85.132.47.9 (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If believing that makes you happy, that's fine with me.--Michael C. Price talk 09:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV must be followed by all 

message: What was otherwise here (but deleted by Michael Price) intersects with ideas in common with Danko's common-sense proposition. But rather than reinstate those words I'll just defer to Danko:
"To accept that there is "which way" information is equivalent to accepting that the setup with both paths unobstructed is a statistical mixture of the two single path setups with obstructions so the complementarity rule for making retrospective predictions is P ==|ψ1|^2 +|ψ2|^2. This alternative formulation of the principle of complementarity is in a form of instruction as to how to make the correct retrospective reconstruction of a mixed state setup — it says that mixed state setups should be retrospectively reconstructed with P =|ψ1|^2 +|ψ2|^2 distribution." - Danko Georgeiv
Danko also provides the instructions for making the correct retrospective reconstruction of pure state setups.
The salient point he makes is that a mixed state distribution differs from a pure state distribution (with the obvious exception of zero nodes and any other aliasing one might like to construct):
  |ψ1|^2 + |ψ2|^2 does not equal |ψ1 + ψ2|^2
So one can both experimentally (and mathematically) disprove that a pure state experimen,t such as Afshar's, allows for both a pure state reconstruction and a mixed state reconstruction. Danko goes on to argue that the mixed state reconstruction is untenable anyway - since both apertures are open at the same time. A conventional mixed state distribution occurs only if each aperture is open at different times. Now Bohr doesn't elaborate complementarity to this extent but he probably should have (if he could). But there are times where Bohr almost sounds like he is allowing which way interpretations on double aperture setups (providing a gap for Afshar's critical experiment) - and that's a deabatable problem with Bohrs expression of complementarity (and the Copenhagen Interpretation in general). Consider the following:
"This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance that we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path of a particle or observing interference effects, which allows us to escape from the paradoxical necessity of concluding that the behaviour of an electron or a photon should depend on the presence of a slit in the diaphragm through which it could be proved not to pass." - Neils Bohr
Is Bohr suggesting a particle could be proved not to have passed through the slit? It's sort of difficult to say. IHe could be simply framing complementarity in terms that would be classically comprehendable (albeit risking misunderstanding of the very thing he is expressing). Or it could be that he simply had not thought through how the principle might be (mis)comprehended in classical terms. Or he miscomprehended the principle himself (ie. had one foot too firmly planted in the classical camp). There is a lot of useful work that could be done in re-reading Bohr. Afshar's experiment is a good starting point. But while it might throw into question Bohr's expression of the complementarity principle it need not throw into question any mathematical definition of such (since mathematics is founded on consistency).
Irregardless of how one interprets Bohrs position, Danko provides a mathematically consistent way to extend Bohrs principle of complementarity beyond "only the circumstance", or to be more generous to Bohr: to simply restate Bohr's principle in clearer (mathematical) terms.
Afshar (on the other hand) is effectively arguing that we should introduce a 'paradox' (inconsistency) when interpreting (retrospectively reconstructing) the Afshar experiment. Danko argues the opposite - that we should not.
If we choose to avoid a paradox (as surely Bohr would have agreed) then Danko provides (well grounded) instructions for doing so. 
But if we choose to accept a paradox (as some of us obviously can - myself not excluded) then what are we doing? Is it science? Its certainly not good mathematics (if one can say there is such a thing as bad mathematics). 
I might also add that Unruhs response to Danko's work: "In no conventional quantum formalism do such states exist" does nothing to help Unruh's argument. Once upon a time the Aether was a convention. But what is at stake for Danko is not convention per se, but something very different. I'd suggest "understanding" might be a good word. Danko's follow up paper argues contrary to Unruh's claim, that his (Dankos) previous paper was conventional. But the effectiveness or otherwise of Dankos follow up argument does not change the original argument. It simply clarifys it in even more formal (conventional) terms. 
We don't need to take the word of famous physicists or Danko to form an opinion. We can work through, and test these things out, ourselves. That's the beauty of science and mathematics.
A joke for Danko: Does two plus two always equal four? No. Just as often one plus three equals four.
--Carllooper (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended Complementarity 

message: Is User:Afshar around?  The description of the experimental results is unclear, as presented here. Let turn the laser brightness to high, leave both holes uncovered, and put the wires in place. The lens should image each pinhole reasonably well: one should be able to look at a screen located at the image plane, and clearly see the pinhole, including any burrs, imperfections, dents, etc. in that pinhole.  Let's say I am looking at pinhole A imaged in this way.  While I am looking at this image, suppose pinhole B is blocked.  Does the image of pinhole A change/degrade/get brighter or dimmer as pinhole B is blocked/unblocked?  The way that the article is written, it seems to imply that the image of pinhole A will be "degraded" when pinhole B is blocked. I find this very hard to believe. 
What I expect to happen is that the image of pinhole A is unaffected, although, when pinhole B is unblocked, I expect some diffuse haze to be added to the image of pinhole A.  So, for example, if A is blocked, and B is unblocked, then the image plane of pinhole A should only show haziness, due to light from B diffracting from the wires.  Covering and uncovering B makes this haze come and go. Otherwise, the image of A should be unaffected.  Right?  With A blocked, B unlocked, one should see nothing but this haziness -- or is it possible, that the wires diffract light from B in such a way that some weak, blurry image of pinhole B is formed at the location of image plane of A ??? Enquiring minds want to know...
The point is that if hole A is covered, and B is not, and we still get light at the image plane of A .. surely, this will be covered in the original paper, right?  We'll see photos of this, right?
Because of this, I'd like someone who has actually witnessed or performed the experiment to confirm or deny the existence of these effects.  The article, as written, remains rather totally ambiguous about this.  However, answering this question would seem to have a material affect in how one should interpret the results. linas (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the figures in the 2007 Arxiv paper answer my questions. The description of the experimental results in this article are misleading/incorrect, they don't really match up with what the arxiv paper is saying. linas (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs better description of the experimental results 

message: In the lead it says, without any preparation whatsoever,
The result of the experiment, that a grid of wires can be ignored when both slits are open, is in accordance with the standard predictions of quantum mechanics;
To somebody who hits this sentence for the first time it seems to say that grids of wires can be ignored. What grids of wires? All that seems to be accomplished is that the reader is going to look for something more about these mysterious wires. So this grid violates complementarity? No, that can't be it. Putting a grid in someplace violates complementarity? That can't be the meaning. An experiment might produce results that violate complementarity, but what experiment? So maybe it is that a Young experiment modified, somehow, by inclusion of a grid will give results that violate complementarity? Is that it? It's not so hard to say, if my guess is correct. Please give a break to the reader who does not already know what the intended meaning is. P0M (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming that the reader already knows what you are talking about 

message: I think it is notable to explain that there is disagreement amonst Afshar critics. Here is direct quote from article: "They are united in their rejection of the claims of a violation of complementarity, while disagreeing amongst themselves as to precisely why Afshar is wrong." Some accetp interference only some accept which way only and some neither. Actually even conversation above shows this disagreement also. The other problem is Flores-Knoesel paper responding to Kastner is incorrectly listed as critics. Does anybody know why? 98.154.13.159 (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote from the article is not proof.  It isn't sourced.  In fact I think we should remove it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mike, the above post is correct for the fact that Flores-Knoesel paper is not critique of Afshar, but critique of Kastner and therefore specific support for Afshar. I propose moving this support paper to the section Support for Afshar's thesis. Regards, Danko Georgiev (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the support for Afshar in the abstract. Note: a critque of Kastner does NOT imply support for Afshar. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement Amongst Critics

message: Reading through the article, this section seems to be a big mess to me. The back and forth doesn't give the reader much background to what the critiques are. Why is which way information important? What does Afshar say the implications of his results are? Why are these important? What is the importance of the critiques? Could the article be better served by a more general section detailing the impact of the experiment, what is the major views of the scientific community on the experiment. This shouldn't include the counters by Afshar, without more explaination behind the Specific Critiques section, it reads like a mess to me, and it takes up over half the article in a back and forth arguement.Savage1987 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific critiques section

message: I found it obscure by this statment:
"which is why we see the pinholes separately in the image plane close to the mirrors before the photon-detectors."
Would it be possible to add illustrations for that image plane position in the pictures?
101.99.18.130 (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiment illustration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Afshar experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120716222819/http://www.sciencefriday.com/images/shows/2004/073004/AfsharExperimentSmall.jpg to http://www.sciencefriday.com/images/shows/2004/073004/AfsharExperimentSmall.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Afshar experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090314142652/http://strc.herts.ac.uk/ls/ole/to.html to http://strc.herts.ac.uk/ls/ole/to.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but not new to quantum measurement, having published four peer-reviewed articles on the subject. I don't know if I'm using the proper forum for my concern. Hope this is the right place to make my case.
I added three paragraphs to the Afshar experiment, which were quickly deleted, because it says they were 'fringe' physics. I'm sure my addition is not fringe physics since it's based on the emphatic assertion of our new Nobel laureate, Roger Penrose, subsequently reiterated in great mathematical detail by Mohr at the NIST and Smith and Raymer at Oxford U. I want to contest the deletion of my addition, and tried to do that yesterday, but don't presently see that critique anywhere on the Afshar page. 
Please tell me what's become of my protest from yesterday, and how I ought to continue to contest deletion of my addition to the page.D bar x (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contest deletion