Dear linas, if you have time please read my post in the Afshar's talk page before someone has deleted it. Now if you have reconsidered your attitude towards my work, you may contact me by e-mail. Actually I can explain you now with water experiments only, what is not and what is relevant in QM. I have stopped our discussion because of your e-mail where you said you have no time to read my postings, because I am obviouly ignorant in math, etc. This usually is considered as non-rational discussion, where you apply judgement about one own personality, but not judge his arguments. Well, I was also busy, because I had to start a Ph.D reserahc in Japan. I will be glad for some rational collaboration. I think everything about complementarity can be said only when speaking of water waves only. Danko
Dear Linas, I am amazed to see that you have proposed the deletion of the experiment Wiki page! You have not even responded to my last e-mail yet, and this is what you do instead?! I appeal to your sense of fairness and leave it at that... Prof. Afshar 20:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Linas,
Finally I have a little time to respond to your e-mail!
I took a look at the your changes to the Wiki article and I am surprised by your charachterization: "the controversy has been mostly ignored within the mainstream academic physics community." How did you come to that conclusion? Frankly this statment is contradicted by the very fact the article exists and the long list of academic critics whom are included in it! I have never seen such a statement made in any other Wiki article, so please kindly elaborate on that, so I can reply on the specific issue that you have in mind.
As for your other comments I have inserted my response in Capital letters into your original e-mail below.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards. Shahriar S. Afshar
Original Message-----
From: linas [1] Sent: Wed 12/7/2005 4:03 PM To: Afshar, Shahriar S. Subject: Re: FW: Wikipedia article
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:43:40PM -0500, Afshar, Shahriar S. was heard to remark: > L--Here's the paper. Regards. --S
Thank you for the preprint. I read it as carefully as I could bear. It appears to be in order. I have only two comments, one direct, and one having only indirect bearing on this paper, but perhaps central to the phenomenon being studied.
THANKS FOR THE APPROVAL! BEAR IN MIND THIS PAPER HAD BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR 2.5 YEARS AND CRITICALLY REVIEWD BY A DOZEN EXPERTS ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS.
First, it seems to me that both the old and the new versions of your experiment could be carried out with classical waves. For example, a high-school/college physics ripple tank could be set up, with slits, lens, etc. and it seems that exactly the same experimental results would be recorded.
IT IS TRUE THAT THIS EXPERIMENT CAN BE SETUP USING RIPPLE TANKS (IT NEEDS A VERY LARGE TANK BUT IT CAN BE DONE), HOWEVER I DISAGREE THAT "exactly the same experimental results would be recorded". HERE'S WHY: IN THE RIPPLE TANK VERSION, THE WAVES ARE REAL AND BOTH BEAMS CARRY ENERGY AND MOEMENTUM, SO AT THE IMAGE PLANE BOTH DETECTROS WOULD GO OFF (BOTH FLOATS WOULD BOB SIMULTANEOUSLY). IN CONTRAST WHILE THE QM DESCRIPTION OF WAVEFUNCTIONS ARE IDENTICAL TO REAL WAVES, ONLY ONE OF THE DETECTORS WOULD GO OFF AT THE IMAGE PLANE. THIS IS DUE TO THE QUANTIZED NATURE OF QUANTUM OBSERVABLES (WE NEVER OBSERVE THE WAVEFUNCTION, DIRECTLY, ONLY ITS ABSOLUTE SQUARED VALUE.) THIS IS THE MYSTERY OF THE SO-CALLED COLLAPSE OF THE WAVEFUNCTION AHICH MAKES QM UNIQUE, AND ONTOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT FROM CLASSICAL MECHANICS.
Another alternative would be sound waves. Ultrasound in the range of 10KHz or 20KHz would allow a table-top sized demonstration (lower frequencies would require a very large setup, but would allow one to maybe physically walk around the setup, using one's own ears as detectors).
YES YOU CAN DO IT THIS WAY. BUT AS I SAID ABOVE, BOTH LISTENERS AT THE IMAGE PLANE WOULD HEAR THE SOUND IN THE "IMAGES."
Since I presume the outcome of such an experimet would be in complete agreement with optical experiment, I then am lead to ask what any of this has to do with quantum mechanics. There may be something there, but I cannot yet put my finger on it.
YES THERE IS SOMETHING TO IT: QUANTIZATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC (OR OTHER) FILEDS!
The direct remark is that there is a slight mis-statement in the conclusion, if I read it correctly. You state:
"...the current theory of measurement in which a measurement always leads to a change of the quantum state of the detector."
This seems to ignore the "famous" "Renninger negative-result experiment", in which case a wave-function collapse is provoked even in the absence of a traditional measurement having been made.
Of all of the various quantum paradoxes, I've always found the Renninger experiment to be particularly vexing and intriguing. It seems to me that mabe you've introduced a bit of that phenomenon into your setup.
--linas
NO! IN THE RENNINGER EXPERIMENT, THE DETECTOR IS PLACED IN THE REGION OF SPACE WHERE THE AMPLITUDE OF THE WAVEFUNCTION IS NON-ZERO. WHEN IT FAILS TO DETECT THE PARTICLE THERE, THIS NULL RESULT CHANGES THE WAVEFUCNTION BY REDISTRIBUTING THE AMPLITUDES TO CONSERVE THE NORM, AND CERTAINLY CAUSES A SCATTERING OF THE WAVEFUNCTION. HOWEVER, MY DETCTORS (WIRES) ARE PLACED AT THE NULLS OF THE WAVEFUNCTION, WHICH BY "NOT REGISTERING" VERIFY THE NULLS (ZERO AMPLITDUES) WITHIN THE WAVEFUNCTION. THIS HAS THE CRUCIAL BENEFIT OF LEAVING THE UNITARY EVOLUTION OF THE WAVEFUNCTION INTACT, AND NO REDISTRIBUTION OF AMPLITUDES TAKES PLACE.
I HOPE THE ABOVE IS CLEAR ENOUGH!
S.S. Afshar Afshar 21:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read Afshar to say is that in the classical experiments BOTH images will bump at once in water, or in the sound experiment BOTH listerners will hear the sound. YES!!!! The situation is THE SAME in the photon. The state of the photon is exacly superposition of BEING AT BOTH IMAGES - I called this "holography/holograqphic image". IF the photon's state is coherent/superposition then NO WHICH WAY is there. I don't know what should be more clear than this !? In the projection postulate of QM is said that IF you measure a coherent state you will "collapse" it in one of the measured basis states. I do not see anything disturbing - the photon is coherent superposition at the detectors, the "collapse" appears somewhere inside the detectors. The WHICH WAY info in contrast requires inversely the collapse of the photon to appear at the slits - so that in which way it must arrive in a "mixed state" at the detectors. But Afshar clearly shows that the photon does not arrive in a mixed state, so then NO WHICH WAY. Danko
Not sure what to say. My point was that your experiment appears to be a combination of a classical wave experiment (the realization as a ripple tank) in combination with the usual quantum measurement weirdness of wave-function collapse. I already find that thinking about a photon hitting a photographic plate is quite puzzling, never mind where the photon came from. I find the Mott problem quite astounding. By thinking about your experiment, I gain no physical insight into these previous two examples, or others that I think about. It doesn't resolve any issues that I have with quantum measurement.
Also: I did not mean to imply that your wires are like the Renninger experiment. I meant to imply something very different: it was in response to the statement
In the Reninger experiment, a measurement is made without a change of state of the detector. linas 21:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. I find it wholly remarkable that you and your freinds seem to all be quite active on this issue today, and seem to have this strange need to use each-others accounts from which each of you are unable to make various edits in various ways, thus necessitating the use of each-others accounts to actually perform these edits that the others could not perform. I find these explanations to be throughly confusing, even if in fact they are correct. Again, please stop, and please tell all of your freinds to stop as well. linas 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
re Afshar Exper, you wrote "(revert removal of deletion notice; this process needs to run to its normal conclusion in 5 days" I agree with your action to stick to the rules. GangofOne 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am a newcomer. Thanks for the help and the compliment, calling me a real mathematician. I hope I am. I have a Ph.D. in pure mathematics (set-theoretic and measure-theoretic foundations of probability theory) and a Ph.D. in statistics with a specialty in order statistics and empirical processes, and have been a roving academic since then...sigh... Sorry to admit ignorance, but how do I join the mathematics project? I tried but did not succeed. As an undergrad, I had studied special and general relativity and a bit of quantum mechanics; lately, I have been reading a lot about quantum theory, along with the various string theories and M theory, but I am just an amateur in those fields; I certainly do not really understand it well; also, I am interested in quantum computing. Anyway, thanks again MathStatWoman 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I "slapped" the too-technical tag on the discussion page of Lp space becasue the article is too technical. I don't want to spend a lot of time writing a description of what that means, since there is already a formal Wikipedia policy proposal that describes it far better than I could ever hope to. Please see Making technical articles accessible for what it means and suggestions for improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacomet (talk • contribs)
Hello,
I noticed that you'd made a series of edits which refer to stochastic electrodynamics as a "crank" theory. Please read some of the literature before continuing in that vein. Puthoff, Rueda, Haisch, de la Pena, etc are not cranks (or if they are, then they are the kind of cranks that get published in Phys Rev D ;) I would not claim it is a proven theory, but at a minimum it is an extremely interesting hypothesis that merits further study. I look forward to collaborating with you on that and related articles after you've digested the math in the relevant papers and can make a more substantive contribution. ObsidianOrder 07:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Linas, thanks for your invitation. I have indeed contributed approximately 600 articles about physics, most of them are rather specialized, and right now I don't see how a particular team of five people can improve these things significantly. You may try to edit the articles listed in "my contributions". At any rate, I wish you a good luck. All the best, LM --Lumidek 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Linas, please remove the AfD tag from the experiment page. Who is supposed to close the voting process? It's already been 9 days, way over the usual voting time. Why?! -- Afshar 14:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You really turned Casimir effect into something nice to read. Thanks for that. A little barnstar to show my appreciation. I'm sure countless other people appreciate it, also. Karol 08:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Linas, please take a look at the following form the discussion page for Afshar experiment. I await you response. Regards, and Happy New Year! --Afshar 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'll look.
May I ask for look at Second Temporal Dimension? Looks somewhat strange to me (see talk page), but I don't know zilch about usage of the term in string theory. --Pjacobi 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia! Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:test}}
{{subst:test2}}
{{subst:test3}}
{{subst:test4}}
what do you think of this? -- Zondor 16:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Linas- since you listed mathematics as an interest in your user talk, I was hoping you could lend your expertise to the current Mathematics Collaboration of the Week: Multiple Comparisons. Obviously it's a interesting and important topic. We are also in the midst of a discussion as to the distinction between multiple comparisons and multiple testing. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Let's get a math article up on the front page! Thanks for any help. Debivort 10:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what should be done with this article? I'm tempted to redirect it to Gee, but that article is only about the Earth's gravitational acceleration. —Ruud 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Heh, a typo, sort of: a harmonic number is NOT the inverse of the harmonic mean of the first n integers.
--Eliazar 07:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Linas, and the question from Pjacobi, and Happy New Year. This article is a kind of article where it's hard to find obvious nonsenses, but where the point is completely unclear. For example, they explain how they can derive the coupling of ghosts. Well, the coupling of Faddeev-Popov ghosts are strictly determined by the commutation relations of the Lie algebra they are associated with. It's very hard to understand how can there be anything new about deriving ghost couplings, and there are similar points. Most of the formulae in that paper are more or less well-known formulae - but they try to claim that they rediscovered "proper" QED in some sense that I don't understand.
Theories with asymptotic freedom such as Quantum Chromodynamics much like finite theories such as N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory can be claimed to be finite and free of ultraviolet divergences. That's certainly not the case of Quantum Electrodynamics because the latter has a Landau pole, and if they claim that their QED without modifications to its defining equations is finite, then you can be sure that everyone else in particle physics would think that they lost their mind.
This enterprise is a part of axiomatic quantum field theory that has not led anywhere but it is of course often hard to say it directly to the eyes of those who spent lives doing such things - and they have difficulties to admit it to themselves, too.
At any rate, I think that there should be a policy that a scientific result should not be interpreted as a fact on Wikipedia unless it has at least 20 citations according to scholar.google.com, excluding self-citations. Best wishes, Lubos --Lumidek 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on de: is at de:FQFT. Besides the Zürich group, only Fredenhagen's "group" at Hamburg seem to have published on it. --Pjacobi 20:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you changed a link in the "Negentopy" page to reference "Extropy", which is is non-scientific term. Firstly, I think there is enough confusion about entropy without confusing it even moreso by linking to a non-scientific term. I looked at the "Extropy" entry, and it is seems to be a belief system that you, for some reason, think should be referenced.
I have a Ph.D. in mathematical physics, and have studied the concept of entropy quite thoroughly. My intent is not to vandalize this page, but to keep it focused. I have cleaned up references from new-age-type entries about "energy" for the same reason.
If you wish to open a discussion page about various issues regarding entropy, I would be glad to continue the discussion. anon post on 9 Jan 2006 from user:216.237.143.47
Linas, thanks for refining some of my categorization. Is it policy not to include scientists (already categorized by nationality and profession as a deep subcategory of history of whatever) also in history of science or history of physics, and such? It seems like it would be good having the overall most notable scientists also in History of science, and the most notable physicists in History of physics; it makes those categories more useful without having to delve deeper in the difficult-to-navigate categorization trees. I would like to be able to go to [[Category:History of science]] and see all the most important people, events and ideas from the history of science right there, then more detail within each history of a science category, then still more when you get down to things like fundamental quantum physics or American scientists.
Also, since I see you have an abiding interest in categorization, especially history and science related, I wonder if you know of any good candidates for the "history of science stubs" category I would like to create (see my user page)?--ragesoss 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of what I propose here: Category talk:History of science?--ragesoss 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linas, please consider joining the History of Science Wikiproject I am trying to start; your input would bring a lot to it, I think.--ragesoss 02:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Czesc, Linas, I read your message on pseudoscience discussion. You speak polish? I see on your user page you are maybe lithuanian? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linas - just a quick note to say thank you for your support on Lakinekaki's talk page. His responses have now become so irrational and bizarre that I have decided to drop out of the "bios theory" debate for the time being - there are plenty of other people challenging his assertions. I hope Lakinekaki will eventually become bored with his one-man campaign. Gandalf61 09:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Linas. Thanks for checking my REDIRECT of Residual strong force.
We're having a discussion at Talk:Dark_energy#Changing_.22negative_pressure.22 about how to make this subject accessible to laypeople. Do you have any thoughts on this? - Writtenonsand 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dark energy is psuedo-science. JabberMonkey 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Linas. Just to tell you that I stop drinking coffee and that my reactions concerning Afshar are becoming more professional... :) Drezet
you are certainly right after all there are many experiments and unfouned results which are published. The question is however how to present objectively things like that. I read again the Afsahr page and indeed the beginning is neutral and the pictures are nice. Perhaps then the simplest task is to remove completely the theory section: we dont need it it is confusing .... I will look more closely how is the page concerning complementartiy perhaps a link should be sufficient. Drezet 23 January 2006 (UTC)
OK if we want to be neutral on the Afshar experiment the best way is perhaps to present the theory section in two steps: 1) we say that the following theory is the interpretation of afshar and 2) we ask afsahr to write his proper explanation in the most objective way. The section must be short so no other contribution like mine in the past should be included. Concerning you analogy with water waves this is not completely correct since you have indeed only access to one part of the problem with water: the wave concept. However you need the particle aspect because complementarity needs this 2 concepts on a equal footing. I will however write something with pleasure on complementarity but not on the afshar page (perhaps as I toold you before a link is a good additionnal idea ). Drezet
I don't think it makes sense to write two different, "private" essays; one or both will loose, and there will be hurt feelings. I think it would be much better if both of you made only small edits to the main article, and then wait a day or two for a response. When making an edit, ask yourself, "will this make everyone scream"? If it will, then its probably not a good edit. Major edits, such as removing the theory section, should be discussed before they are made, not after. Actually, lets begin with the theory section: should we just chop it out entirely? Who wants to write the first draft for replacing it? linas 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currenctly working on a page for complementarity principle but of course the materia could be used for both pages. I think that indeed the best is to work together and not separatly. I have some idea how to define and introduce the duality relation (Englert-Greenberger's formula). Perhaps we can start with that. Of course this page is essentially the Afshar one and not mine. I dont want to include my critics in the page (the reference are sufficient for that purpose). It is very important that Pr. Afsahr present his proper argumentation (which should not be mixed with others). In other case it will be a total confusion. I guess that after the introduction of the duality relation he should present directly his argumention explaining why duality is wrong: I will not criticize anything on that part and will help as if it will be my idea too (I think that like that it will be more objective). I will include soon a part concerning the duality relation: we can discuss after of course Drezet 26 January 2006
I started.... Drezet 26 January 2006
Did I do something bad like delete a legitimate reference? I reverted something whcih seemed ill-conceived (a statement that "wikipedia does not allow externall references" and some other stuff). If I made a mistake please revert me.--CSTAR 17:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Linas, I guess I bumped into you again on the SED page discussion... I wondered if you had any reasons it should be classified as pseudoscience, other than innaccuracies of the theory or the nature of its proponents (Thomas Gold, a widely respected astrophysist who contributed greatly to the field, was also a complete crank who didn't believe in radiation pressure on a mirror, or the law of conservation of momentum, calling it "silly"). To my understanding, for something to be a pseudoscience, it must deviate from the scientific method. I am wondering what the nature of the deviations of SED are. Please note that it is my person opinion that SED is completely and utterly wrong, but interesting nevertheless - JustinWick 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.
In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)
Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.
