Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Thank you!

I wish to thank Ashibaka, Gareth Hughes, Linas, Drezet, and Carl for their support in keeping Wikipedia objective, informative and fair. Danko Georgiev MD has finally agreed to "restrain [him]self [from] posting comments on the Talk page of Afshar's article." Please kindly report any violations to Gareth Hughes. I would highly appreciate it if somebody would archive this page so we can continue with a “clean slate”, so to speak! Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 09:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

American Physical Society March 2006 meeting

Professor Ashfar gave a brilliant talk at the APS meeting that ripped Kastner's arguments apart. He was not one of the speakers, but Professor Greenberger the chair of the session decided to allow him present his side after Kastner failed to show up. Greenberger said in support of Ashfar "the worm has certainly turned." It was amazing!

Everyone should really agree

Hello, I am new here. First let me say that I was dismayed to see Professor Afshar being accused of fraud. But I understand it is all settled now. My view is that a) this experiment is very beautiful and interesting *because* it shows that QM is true b) the result was predictable, as whatever the interpretation one prefers, the predictions of QM are independent of the interpretation, and the predictions of QM are clear: what Professor Afshar found is what QM predicts he should have found. And all interpretations of QM are compatible with his result, just as they are compatible with every other prediction of QM. For instance: a) Everett many-worlds: the photon went through both pinholes, therefore creates an interference pattern, therefore the grid is not seen. Then the photon hits *both* detectors, and the world splits into two new worlds, one where the photon hits one detector and one where it hits the other one. Then whoever, in one of this worlds, watches the arrival in one detector, does not see the other world, but this is a general case of Everett many-worlds, not specific to Afshar's experiement b) Bohm's mechanics: the photon went through one pinhole, but nonlocally "knows" the other one is open and therefore creates an interference pattern as usual in Bohm's theory. So the grid is not seen. Then the photon ends up wherever Bohm's hidden but nonlocal variable says it should go. c) Consciouness causes reduction: this reduction is *not* retroactive. The photon went through both pinholes just as in Everett's view. The interference is there, thus the grid is not seen. Then both detectors are hit (with amplitude 1/sqrt(2), square amplitude 1/2), both amplifiers amplify the detection, and if each is connected to a lamp for instance, both lamps lit up (each with square amplitude 1/2). But conciousness does not "accept" this and chooses which one of the two lamps is really lit up. But this happens *after* the photon has gone through the apparatus and does not mean that the photon went through a specific pinhole before going successfully through the grid without seeing it. This is an absolutely general case of "consciouness causes reduction" which is *never* retroactive.

So I claim that this experiment (though I find it fascinating and its importance should not be understated) does not allow to distinguish between various interpretations. Saying that is disproves "wave-particle" duality is not a misunderstanding of the experiment but a misunderstanding of what "duality" really means. Duality is just a word. If one puts "too much" into this word, than this "too much" will be provably false. Duality is true provided one puts into this word just what one should put into it: "in flight" the photon behaves as a nonlocal wave (or, in Bohm's view, a particle that is guided by a wave, the latter nonlocally "knowing" whether the other pinhole is open or not and creates an interference pattern only if the pinhole through which the photon does *not* go through is indeed open). But upon seing its arrival on a detector, one has to interpret it as a particle (either splitting worlds "à la Everett", or consciousness causing reduction "à la Wigner"). The predictions of QM are true, and that is what is important. If the result had been different, then a total re-thinking of QM would have been needed, and I consider as very important that this experiment was done and QM vindicated once more. Just as it is the case with Professor Aspect's EPR experiments. Please do not understand my comment as belittling the importance of Afshar's experiment as that would be completely contrary to my opinion. Alfredr 06:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alfredr -- the results are completely predictable and interpretation independent. This all sounds very similar to Quantum Optical Tests of Complementarity Bethold-Georg Englert, Marlan O Scully & Herbert Walther, Nature, Vol 351, 111-116 (9 May 1991). They demonstrated that quantum interference effects are destroyed by irreversible object-apparatus correlations ("measurement"), not by Heisenberg's uncertainty or Bohr's complementary principle itself. See also The Duality in Matter and Light Scientific American, (December 1994)

The following discusion does not belong to the Afshar experiment talk page, and has been moved to Alfredr's user page as per the agreed upon statement at the top of the talk page above. You are more than welcome to continue your discussion in your user page, but I will not waste my time responding to Danko Georgiev for reasons discussed before, and well-known to Wiki administrators. Prof. Afshar 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Differentiation of Complementarity and HUP

Another view is that complementarity has been previously shown not to be relevant to the formation of quantum interference effects; Afshar's work is a confirmation of this earlier work:

• Bethold-Georg Englert, Marlan O Scully & Herbert Walther, Quantum Optical Tests of Complementarity , Nature, Vol 351, pp 111-116 (9 May 1991). Englert et al demonstrated that quantum interference effects are destroyed by irreversible object-apparatus correlations ("measurement"), not by Heisenberg's uncertainty or Bohr's complementary principle itself. See also The Duality in Matter and Light Scientific American, (December 1994)MichaelCPrice

The above has been moved from the main article to here because it does not belong to the "Critics" section as the mentioned paper neither criticizes my experiment, nor is it relevant to the thesis of my work which is NEGATION of Complementarity. Scully et. al's suggested experiment on the occasional INDEPENDENCE of Complementarity from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) has been briefly mentioned as Ref.s [3-9] of my original paper http://www.irims.org/quant-ph/030503/ (that was published in Proc. SPIE 5866, 229-244, July 2005), and the issue has been discussed in page 3 of that paper. It is crucial to understand that up until my experiment no physicist had shown a VIOLATION of Complementarity OR EVEN SUGGESTED AN EXPERIMENT TO DO SO. Quite the contrary is true! In fact the Nature paper by Scully et. al. regards Complementarity as valid and more fundamental than HUP. So, to say that "Afshar's work is a confirmation of this earlier work" is an utter distortion of history. None of the individuals on that paper (or any subsequent paper for that matter) ever questioned the validity of PC even to this day. They simply showed that PC is not ALWAYS enforced by HUP, that's all! Regards. -- Prof. Afshar 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant that Scully does not claim violation of complementarity; but neither does your experiment demonstrate this either. The photon exhibits pure wave-effects as it passes the wires and a pure particle effect when it is focused on the screen, but not at the same time.--Michael C Price 08:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I would highly appreciate if you could kindly discuss your suggested change to article here first. That would help a lot! It is clear to me that you have not read my papers or gone through the 600+ Q&A's in my weblog, otherwise you would have realized this issue has been thoroughly addressed. While the measurements related to complementary wave and particle natures of light are performed in separate spacetime events, their logical inferences BOTH refer back to the same singular event, i.e. the passage of the single photon through the dual pinholes (or double slit if you prefer). I really suggest you read all the weblog @&A and then rethink your position. I don't think you are a physicist but I strongly believe it is a prerequisite for engaging in this debate. This experiment is a lot more subtle than you give it credit! Prof. Afshar 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, calm down. First, YES complementarity is a fundamental mathematical rule for assesing probabilities in QM, and the fact that you misunderstand what complementarity is, is your own fault. And second, nobody should read the web posts where you actually do not provide any information - stop lying, because you DO NOT adress any issues in your blog, what you do is to IGNORE inconvenient questions, to answer preferably to questions which are not destructive for your pet interpretation. See on Alfred's discussion page the computer generated plots of the no-apodization case, differences that would be observable if you do not erase them, so if you want to say something please feel free to say it. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Prof' Afshar, you have made several unwarranted and incorrect assumptions about me which I shall not dwell on, except to say that I stopped reading your weblog when I reached your claim that many worlds violates conservation of linear momentum. Perhaps you should read my FAQ on the subject[1]; you might learn a thing or two about many-worlds and correct some of your assumptions about me.  :-)

Returning to the more important issue of complementarity I note that the wikipedia entry states that the complementarity only says that pure wave and particle properties may not appear at the same time, which is also how it is presented in standard QM texts and courses. Dragging in the issue of logical inference is complete red herring.

Regards --Michael C Price 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, my beef was with David Deutsch’s description of the interference process in a double slit experiment in his book "Fabric of Reality". His description certainly leads to violation of the conservation of linear momentum in our universe, as momentum is exchanged between the real (tangible) photons and the (shadow) one's from the parallel universe. I am certainly no expert in MWI as Hugh Evertte formulated it and time permitting may read up on your FAQ on the subject, but nevertheless I stand firmly behind my original objections to Deutsch's argument on the subject.

Now, back to the "same time" business. Strictly speaking, what Bohr said was: "… we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path of the particle, or observing interference effects…we have to do with a typical example of how the complementary phenomena appear under mutually exclusive experimental arrangements" (N. Bohr, in: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P. A. Schilpp, Ed. (Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, Illinois, 1949).) The fact is that he believed a single quantum particle could either manifest a sharp wave-like effect like passing through both slits, or a sharp particle-like effect like passing through just one of the slits. These two situations are logically "mutually exclusive". As long as one shows two such effects in the same experimental arrangement, complementarity as Bohr described it above would be violated.

As for your comment "Dragging in the issue of logical inference is complete red herring" I'm afraid that is exactly what complementarity is all about. Retrodictions and logical consistency IS the main reason Bohr put forward Complementarity, and this view has been verified to me personally by Harvard Prof.s Gerald Holton, and Peter Galison, two of the most eminent historians of physics, one of whom (Holton) was in fact present at a Bohr-Einstein debate along with Paul Dirac. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that what Bohr meant by complementarity is NOT clear, which is why you can get it to support anything you wish to believe by picking and choosing quotes (BTW your quote does not rule out my POV either) and why you have to resort to historians of science for further elucidation about what Bohr "really" meant. By contrast the HUP is clear and precise and is not violated by your experiment. The Schrodinger equation is obeyed everywhere. End of story. --Michael C Price 07:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, this is not the end of story, because complementarity is "mathematical principle" that says in case of "undistinguishable particles/histories" you should add quantum amplitudes and then square in order to get probability distributions (observable). And in contrast in case of "distinguishable particles/histories" you should do exactly the opposite first square the quantum amplitudes and then add in order to get probability distribution.

Dear Danko, you refer to the decoherence and the diagonalisation of density matrix: amplitudes are additive before deoherence, whilst probabilities become additive after decoherence. I agree with this, although I don't think it follows from Bohr's "complementarity" but rather from Max Born, Hugh Everett and W Zurek --Michael C Price 09:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What Afshar does is to show that in case of coherent light in double slit there is interference. It is clear that interfere indistinguishable particles/histories and this is actually the essence of quantum coherence. So he further quotes some mis-understood position that the image plane provides "which way" information. This is a logical absurd because if the photons already interfered they should be indistinguishable. So the general conclusion is that at the image plane there is "no which way" information, and what Afshar disproves is this erroneous position that at the image plane of a lens there is "which way" information. I could not blame him because similar things are said also by Zeilinger, and maybe are written in some of the physics textbooks, but this does not make them "true". One should understand the reality of the superposition in order to understand what QM is all about. Danko Georgiev MD 09:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael Price, I am greatly interested to learn more on the momentum in QM. Actually earlier in this page is my critique of Afshar's usage of momentum; see this link. Actually I think that momentum has magnitude and direction as vector, but in QM, you cannot have both these precisely determined at the same time. One should remain in superpostion, otherwise you will violate Haeisenberg relation - you can apply a kick of atom with photon of given wavelength in precisely determined direction [although in probabilistic manner]. Best, Danko Georgiev MD 03:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Plots of the apodization effect

Here is Wikipedia link of the appodization effect that was so hotly disputed by Afshar and me. The simulation is performed with Wolfram's Mathematica and it is computer plotted graph not hand-drawn by me. If one needs the notebook source I can send by e-mail. Danko Georgiev MD 02:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Can you please explain your reason for the POV tag in the talk page for the Afshar experiment?-- Prof. Afshar 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (moved from my User:hhanke talk page)

Because people dispute the accuracy of the article, which you seem to regard as "your" article, insofar as when they try to make it NPOV or express criticisms, you revert it and waffle around it on the talk page. --Michael C Price 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (moved from my User:hhanke talk page)

Are you Hhanke?! Interesting how you answered immediately before Hhanke himself! What would you wish to add to the article? I cannot ignore it when someone incorrectly describes the experiemtnand its scope. Rest assured I will continue to monitor for inaccuracies and errors. What I do is strcitly within the Wiki procedures and a number of admins have agreed with it. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (moved from my User:hhanke talk page)

I added the rider "but not at the same time" about the wave vs particle behavour of the photons -- a statement that you admitted was correct on the talk page when you said "the measurements related to complementary wave and particle natures of light are performed in separate spacetime events"; yet you deleted my insert from the article (with the patronising comment "wrong again!"). You lack objectivity and are incapable of a NPOV. --Michael C Price 22:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

re-inserted different times comment to article --Michael C Price 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I have no problem with your addition, GIVEN you qualify it by saying that those "separate measurements both relate back to what happened at the dual-pinhole when the photon traversed it." I do not appreciate your personal attack and I beleive it is wholly uncalled for. Please either add the qualifying remark, or remove your addition to the article. You must realize your personal attack above it itself a POV which I find troubling. NPOV does NOT euqate errouneous POV! I will wait for your action, and if not, I will ask an admin to rectify the situation. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I shall not make the requested addition because I do not believe it is relevant. You may disagree; that's your POV. It would also be repetitous, since you have made the same point elsewhere in the article. As for personal attacks you seem quick to perceive them on yourself and slow to appreciate it when you make them on others; you were the one who questioned my professional competence first, not the other way around. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Please try to be more objective and less partisan. --Michael C Price 08:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear profesor Afshar, I'm in not against the work you are doing in physics and in fact I do not know whether your interpretation is correct or not. I'm a physics student, but I can't judge it with my experience. I've however seen the content of the article is disputed on its talk page and on various other places and so I've marked it as such with no bad intentions. It is a right of the reader and his protection to know such a thing is indeed happening on the talk page. Keep in mind that the POV of the article the tag indicates, might as well be POV harmful to you, not the other way. The tag references to the talk page, so a curious reader can see it and decide for himself. I'm personally disturbed that one of the main authors and defenders of the article is the person whom this article is about, which in itself is in my opinion a reason to put a warning. Please, again, do not take this as any personal offence. I'd be very sad if you did!

Concrete objections:

• The beginning sounds like there are proponents of this interpretation and there was only "some" controversy about it limited to "blogs, blogs, physics colloquia, academic conferences, and arXiv e-print archives".
• On the talk page, one thread begins with a statement of the author of the writer that he thinks the consensus of the general scientific comunity is "overhelmihly negative". I don't believe this is SUFFICIENTLY reflected in the article. Administrator User:Garzo volunteered to sort out the dispute, but no further message was posted by him, leading me to believe a dispute related to the content of the article was not yet solved.
• References include no sources critical to the experiment, which against seems to be unbalanced compared with the contents of the talk page.
• The article is regularly being edited by its main subject. I'm writing this comment on 18 June

and your (prof. Afshar) last edit to the article is dated 15 June.

I understand your concern about incorrect information in the article. My opinion is, professor Afshar, that if you find a mistake in the article, which you will I'm sure, because your knowledge of the subject is very deep, you should report the mistake on the talk page and let somebody else do the actual edit of the article. If this mistake remains unfixed, then make sure the POV tag remains there to protect readers as well as your person. --hhanke 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hhanke, I have replied to your objection below (your comments are in italics):

Concrete objections:

• The beginning sounds like there are proponents of this interpretation and there was only "some" controversy about it limited to "blogs, blogs, physics colloquia, academic conferences, and arXiv e-print archives".

• I did not write that sentence, however, I beleive they are the only quotable sources for a Wiki. The rguments in the talk page do not reflect the goings on in the scientific community, and I have not seen any Wiki article that refers to the discussions in the talk page as a "source". Once somebody publishes a critical paper, or a notable physicist sets up a web-page or a blog, it can be mentioned in the page as it has been in the "Critiques" section. Objections to the experiemnt or my conclusions without external sources are consdiered original research and have no place in Wikipedia. Please take a look at the statement by an administrator Gareth Hughes in an arbitration on a similar complaint as yours: " Overall, the article seems to represent a fair number of concerns about the Afshar experiment, which include links to papers by notable physicists (I found most of these also referenced in an arXiv.org search). " The POV was removed as a consequence. After a long and contentious debate, the decision was made to ''Please limit discussions to topics directly concerning the content and structure of the article Afshar experiment. This page is not the place to have general discussions on quantum mechanics or its interpretation, nor to debate the correctness of Afshar's findings and conclusions. (linas 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)) as shown at the top of this page.

• On the talk page, one thread begins with a statement of the author of the writer that he thinks the consensus of the general scientific comunity is "overhelmihly negative". I don't believe this is SUFFICIENTLY reflected in the article. Administrator User:Garzo volunteered to sort out the dispute, but no further message was posted by him, leading me to believe a dispute related to the content of the article was not yet solved.

• As discussed above, the admin did not beleive that the negative views have not been sufficiently reflected in the article, and frankly, short of an official survey any such comment is itsel a POV which does not belong to an encyclopedia. If you have a credible source for such an opinion please mention it.

• References include no sources critical to the experiment, which against seems to be unbalanced compared with the contents of the talk page.

• Critical references are mentioned in the crtiques section, and reproducing them in the References section would be redundant. Futheremore, they are not the references on the experiment itself! A reference is usually the source of the subject material.

• The article is regularly being edited by its main subject. I'm writing this comment on 18 June and your (prof. Afshar) last edit to the article is dated 15 June.

• I am not the subject of the article, but my research is. As discussed before with admins, I reserve the right to correct inaccuracies and malliscious POVs. Simply because the article is assocoated to my work does not disqualify me as an editor, but as you suggest, I would request other authors to correct the article. But if a few days pass and no change is made, I will take the action. Based on the above, I would appreciate if you could kindly remove the POV. Otherwise I will ask for arbitration by one of the administrators. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with the situation with the article, but another wikipedian decided to remove the tag and I respect his decision. --hhanke 10:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

removed POV tag

I looked over the article, and removed the POV tag after some minor edits to the introduction. The article seems very well balanced to me, and is structured in the standard style (introduction, discussion, major criticisms). Sdedeo (tips) 08:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

list of refs. for theory section

I added the important work of Greenberger an yasin in the refs given in the theory section. Drezet 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Just for the record, I dispute the neutrality of this article. The fact that no one has bothered to debate this issue for 2 weeks does not mean that we are all happy with it.

At some point I'll be updating the Critiques sections to try to provide a bit of balance.--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that all the external links in the Critiques section be moved to a more conventional External Links section and be replaced by :

There are a number of reasons why this experiment is not seen as undermining Complementarity. Some popular views are:

Bohr's philosophical Complementarity Principle is quantified as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle repackaged, and nothing more, and since the Uncertainty Principle is not violated by the experiment then neither is Complementarity.

the modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference relegates Complementarity to the status of an epiphenomenon and hence irrelevant to understanding the foundations of quantum theory.

Comments? --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Michael, there are numerous references (See ref.s 1-20 in my paper http://www.irims.org/quant-ph/030503/) in current physics literature that immediately render both of your assertions above as erroneous. Do you have any external references for your statements above? (One would assume that since you claim they are "popular views" on the subject, there should be no shortage of real ref.s!) If not (i.e. if they are your personal views), they constitute Original research and cannot be used in the article. Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 00:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, if you'd read the links I provided you'd see that the popular view of Complementarity identifies it with wave-particle duality, which is quantified by the Uncertainty Principle. As for the decoherence claims, see the references on the quantum decoherence page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I had looked up the links you mentioned, and not even ONE of them discuss Complementarity! Wave-particle duality as embodies in Complementarity is certainly NOT "quantified as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle repackaged" as you assert. In a seminal paper, Englert refers to Complementary wave-particle duality as the "interferometric duality" (this is not to be confused with the ordinary wave-particle duality which can be observed in a simple single-photon interference pattern build-up.) To directly counter your argument I will quote Englert's abstract verbatim below:

"An inequality is derived according to which the fringe visibility in a two-way interferometer sets an absolute upper bound on the amount of which-way information that is potentially stored in a which-way detector. In some sense, this inequality can be regarded as quantifying the notion of wave-particle duality. The derivation of the inequality does not make use of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation in any form." [B-G Englert, PRL 77, 2154 (1996)]

Anything short of such clear quotations from a valid reference cannot be used in the article. The same applies to the "Complementarity is an epiphenomenon of decoherence" argument you presented. Let us see the ref.s in its usual academic form please: quotation, journal, page, and date. This is too serious an issue to be left to personal bias and opinions. -- Prof. Afshar 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Englert's ideas are described as "A less orthodox interpretation" in Complementarity, in contrast to the earlier statement "Niels Bohr is usually associated with this concept; in the orthodox form, it is stated that a quantum mechanical system consisting of a boson or fermion can either behave as a particle or as wave, but never simultaneously as both." which is exactly consonant with my statement about the popular view.

As for the decoherence claims, the references and further reading sections there are as adequate as the references to your experiment; more so since they are mainstream. Anyway, this is not the page for discussion of QM itself; as the header here quite clearly states "This page is not the place to have general discussions on quantum mechanics or its interpretation", take your concerns with the mainstream to the appropriate talk pages. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Michael, I will not continue with a technical response here as you have failed to produce a quotation and reference for your thesis. I'm afraid it was you who started this "general discussions on quantum mechanics," and without a solid reference for your personal views, you seem to be attempting to shift the blame to me! Any expert, (or objective non-expert) can clearly see which views are backed up by current literature in physics. I restate the simple Wiki policy: if you do not wish your arguments to be deemed as original research: please present your specific thesis based on a quotation from a reliable external source. Again, since you claim your thesis is the "popular view" there should be plenty of PRL types of references. Looking forward to reading your source(s). -- Prof. Afshar 10:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To be accused of original research by Afshar is laughable, when his own work is so clearly OR, lacking citations in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. However since he has indicated this dialogue is at an end, and has been unable to address the issues raised, I shall update the article accordingly.

PS check out the last issue of the BBC's Science and Technology magazine Focus (July 2006 #165) where an article on decoherence states (p65) that Bohr's views are "routinely taught to students - although many experts have long since abandoned it."

--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I have provided solid references for all my assertions as to what Complementarity means and how it is formulated in the current literature in all my papers. As for calling my work as OR, you are wrong yet again, according to Wiki policies and long arbitrations by admins. The single photon experiment shall be published in a "reputable peer-reviewed journal" shortly.

If you go ahead with your erroneous proposed change to the article, I will report any such changes to an administrator as biased original research, and start an official dispute process. I repeat my challenge to you: where are your traditional references? -- Prof. Afshar 11:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I repeat myself -- the solid refs are at decoherence. And I supplied you with a "popular" ref as requested. As for your repeated claim that my text is OR and your's isn't, well OR is a matter of degree; your analysis of your experiment is not supported by a single peer-reviewed citation, whereas my analysis on decoherence and the irrelevance of complementarity are supported by lots of citations from peer-reviewed reputable sources from other researchers. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, Everything I have mentioned in my papers as the basis of the problem is firmly based on peer-reviewed literature. The only original part of my work is the solution to that problem, and as far as Wiki is concerned the solution is not OR due to its wide media coverage and impact in the academia and physics community. What I am asking from you is to kindly refrain from wiping the problem off the blackboard by your personal views on the "irrelevance" of Complementarity. If you believe that is the case (i.e. Complementairity is a non-issue) then provide the reference in which such an assertion is clearly made. Regards. -- Prof. Afshar 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement "The only original part of my work is the solution to that problem, and as far as Wiki is concerned the solution is not OR due to its wide media coverage and impact in the academia and physics community." indicates that you have no idea what OR means. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)