User talk:Afshar
Permission for images
Do you have an image you can release under the [GFDL] of the setup of your experiment that looks like the setup here? If not, I can make something that looks similiar in The Gimp on Wednesday or Thursday. I think this page will work a lot better with pictures, but we can't just steal stuff from web pages here on the Wikipedia.
By the way, you are being very civilized about some of the conflicts. I have minimized the information on multiple pages, since it was multiple copies of the same thing; things like that means it's time to merge on the Wikipedia. The list is on Talk:Afshar experiment. The only page where I completely removed any reference to your experiment is on Niels Bohr, for the same reason we don't say on the Isaac Newton page "Einstein's special theory of relativity violates Newtonian mechanics at high velocities" Samboy 11:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Reverted changes to your user page
User:Lumidek added the following to your user page:
Visibility: zero or one?
Harvard professors of physics, Bertrand Halperin and Lubos Motl, argue that the contrast (i.e. visibility) with which the wave properties of light are observed in Afshar's experiment converges to zero as the wire grid becomes thin simply because only a very tiny fraction of the photons are used to deduce whether the interference exists or not:
In order to argue that there is any interference, the effects of the wires must first be seen. This effect is very small even if the wires are placed at the interference maxima, and the visibility is therefore also small. Shahriar Afshar, on the other hand, argues that the visibility is close to 100 percent. Effectively, he uses one set of photons to measure the "which way information", and another, tiny set of photons to study "interference", which is not correct. According to Halperin and Motl, the Principle of Complementarity, as well as all other important postulates of quantum mechanics, are preserved. The results of this experiment agree with quantum mechanics and all of its mainstream interpretations; in fact, classical electromagnetism is sufficient to explain the observations, they say.
Note: I haven't removed this addition to the Afshar experiment page, just the user page (this information, IMHO, certainly belongs there).
I have removed this because I feel that it isn't very polite to edit user's pages without their permission. This is not a universal sentiment here; our esteemed founder, User:Jimbo_Wales feels differently, for example. If Afshar wants this, he can revert my changes. Or, heck, Lumidek can too; I'm not going to get in a revert war over this. Samboy 14:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Reverting your Double-slit experiment edit
I have reverted your last edit in the Double-slit experiment article [1] because of the “poop” added in the Conditions for interference section, not because of restoring the Shahriar Afshar's experiment section removed by 143.50.61.66 [2] which I have restored now, without the poop. Rafał Pocztarski 17:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks!
Professor Afshar, Just wanted to say thanks for your work on the article about Afshar experiment -- it's a great read, and I appreciate all the hard work you've put into it. Makes it more authoritative and all to be coming straight from the horse's mouth, too. Cheers, Schmiddy 01:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
As you can imagine, I do not support the deletion of the section I wrote. Yout comments are welcomed on the talk page.
Cdang|write me 11:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear Cdang, please REMOVE the analogy you have suggested. The photon is not like a whirlpool and I do not have the time right now to explain how the wave-particle duality can be popularized. But I promise to write something when I get the time. In the meantime I would appreciate if you place your analogy back HERE, so the uninitiated don't get more confused. Thanks! --Afshar 00:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- The other analogy has been removed. I would love if you could write your popularized version. Both this and phonon need some down-to-earthing... Everyone says "these things are quantum weirdness! They are just math and are not meant to be understood!" But I have a feeling that they can be explained better than they currently are. - Omegatron 02:46, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
My removal of categories from your user page
I hope you don't mind that I removed those three categories from your user page. As I explained in my edit summary, those categories are for grouping articles but user pages aren't really articles in that sense. If you're a prominent researcher then I think it'd be appropriate to have an actual article about you instead, though care would have to be taken to avoid tripping over the Wikipedia:Vanity page policy. Bryan 23:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reply
I've replied on my user page. linas 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
I answered on my talk page. In brief: If you look more carefully, you will notice that I did not propose deletion, and that in fact I argued that the article should be kept. Also, I have responded to everything that you have written to me, and in fact, I took silence on your part as tacit admission. Perhaps you should repost your other comments on my talk page, if you beleive I have not replied. linas 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Do not use sockpuppets!
Hi,
Based on one of your recent edits, [3], it apears that you are using a sockpuppet or are impersonating User:Physicsmonk. This is more or less frowned upon in Wikipedia, and the use of this to cast double votes or make inappropriate edits might get you banned. linas 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope that User:ehteshami is not one of your sockpuppets! linas 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Linas, You can't call anyone who supports my work a sockpuppet! User:Physicsmonkis certainly not a sockpuppet either, he is the Boston colleague I mentioned in my e-mail. I asked him to set up an account as you had suggested. He told me about the recent events with Monroe requesting a deletion and then you reinstating Monroe's attempt which I mistakenly understood as your own view. Sorry if I got confused on your vote! At any rate, User:Physicsmonk told me that for some reason he could not post his vote on the Wiki deletion page, which is what I did for him by copying and pasting his response to User:Hmonroe into the vote page. As you can see, I have not voted on the deletion issue myself as I deem that not to be ethical. I hope this clarifies the situation. BTW/ I have posted the e-mail I sent you a few days agao but was left unanswered in your talk page. Afshar 21:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop.
Please stop. You are damaging yourself with your behaviour. If you persist, you will only find yourself in deeper trouble. linas 23:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Linas, the IP you mentioned belongs to the colleague User:Physicsmonk with whom I worked and used his computer last year before I had set up my own Wiki account. After my recent discussions with you I asked him to obtain an account as well, which is exactly what he has done. He retracted the anonymous vote after he realized I had posted his vote for him (see below for the reason). Please stop these unsubstantiated remarks. Frankly, I am starting to think that Hunter Monroe is in fact your sockpuppet?! Afshar 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Your comments
Hi Afshar, responding to your comments on my talk page. It's not really helpful to try to argue the correctness of your ideas on Wikipedia. It's not the right forum to be trying to promote your own ideas. As you can see from the "votes for deletion" page, a number of those voting to keep were convinced after reading the article that the results themselves are something new and unexpected, disproving quantum mechanics. Surely you would agree that the article is misleading if it gives this impression. As a side note, I have enough understanding of quantum mechanics myself that I'm not likely to be convinced by your arguments. --Reuben 18:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Afshar, please stop haunting the article about your own claims. It's inappropriate. And I have no need to debate you. It's irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Reuben 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Afshar, I appreciate your note on my talk page expressing the willingness to avoid directly editing the article. Thanks, I think that will help a lot. --Reuben 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm quite flattered, but I'll have to decline. I have already come to my own conclusions about the correctness of your interpretation, so I'm probably not the best candidate. --Reuben 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
About removing the AFD tag from Afshar experiment. Sorry to give you the impression that I am in control of anything. I am not an admin. I believe an admin has to count the votes, deal with the page accordingly, remove tag, archive disscussion, whatever. I left a note on the AfD page, maybe that will remind someone. Don't forget wikipedia ia all amateurs, a certain slack is to be expected. I suppose a message to somewhere on the Community Portal page maybe in order, I'm not exactly sure to whom. Best wishes. GangofOne 23:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Article Incompletness of quantum physics could use some help
Dear Prof. Afshar,
The article Incompletness of quantum physics could use some help.
In particular it would be helful if the article could be extended to report on the following published work:
- Carlo Rovelli. "Relational quantum mechanics" International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35 1637-1678. 1996.
- Federico Laudisa and Carlo Rovelli. "Relational Quantum Mechanic" The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition).
The results in Incompletness of quantum physics are important in computer science. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Workshop#The_use_of_indeterminacy and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Workshop#Aggressive_autobiographical_editing.
Thanks,
Carl
--Carl Hewitt 01:10 22 January 2006 (PST)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (2nd nomination)
May I respectfully suggest that you please moderate your tone on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (2nd nomination). Remarks like "spiteful non-entity" to Danko certainly count as a personal attack. Also, it does not help to say "Please check the facts before you make erroneous statements." to Stifle, after both Linas and I have already challenged him. I understand your frustration that Afshar experiment got nominated for deletion again, but it is not a big deal. I've been around for long enough to know that the article won't be deleted, but your vociferous defense is counterproductive. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. But don't you think something is fundamentally wrong with a system where a known crackpot (or worse, an ill-wisher) can attack and bring chaos to serious topics of which he knows nothing? FYI/Danko is a Pharmacology student in Japan. If you look at my weblog, you would realize that for months in 2005 I patiently tired to explain the basics to him, but he kept changing his story after every error was exposed. I'm done talking and if he is not stopped I'm done with Wikipedia. I do not have time to constantly monitor what goes on here.--Afshar 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This is indeed a problem. However, it is very hard to resolve this issue without damaging the openness of Wikipedia and the ease with which people can edit it, and the latter is essential to Wikipedia's success. The downside is that continuous monitoring is needed. There are some ways to stop disruptive editors, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and, for extreme cases, Wikipedia:Blocking, but editors are given quite a bit of leeway here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, there is also relevent discussion at Wikipedia:Stable versions to designate "known-good" article versions, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience about general problems of crank edits. linas 19:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear S. Afshar I have a suggestion for you: after a brief discussion with linas and after reading and reading again your WP page I accepted the fact that the first part presenting the experiment is mot so bad that I expected. Perhaps indeed the best choice would be that after this first section you write some theoretical explanations justifying your thought. This part should clearly precise that this is Your point of view (at least in one sentence at the beginning). At the end of the article the serie of links must be presented as other potential interpretations of your results. If you think that this is a good idea let me know
Drezet 24 january 2006
As discussed I modified my point of view on the deletion page
regards
Drezet 24 january 2006