User talk:Drezet

Hi,

Can you please move the article Can Bohr's complementarity be tested? to your personal website? While I agree with you that Afshar has made a mistake in his interpretation, I note that WP is not the place for the publication of original research or for the expression of opinions. I will likely nominate this article for VfD sometime soon, for these reasons. linas 15:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have placed a copy of your article at User:Drezet/Afshar so that you don't loose a copy. I do plan to VfD this soon ... linas 17:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Howdy and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know you can sign and date your comments on talk pages (or deletion pages) by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). Feel free to write a note on my talk page if I can help with anything. Thanks again, --Hansnesse 17:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Afshar, etal.

I replied on my talk page. As to arguing with Danko, I beleive that the best thing to do is to ignore him; otherwise, the arguments become endless. As to the Afshar article, I beleive that Afshar's interpretation is incorrect. However, the topic is now notable enough that we should keep the article. There will no doubt be young students who will want to understand and learn what the basic idea is, and why the interpretation is incorrect. The task is then to make the article as accurate as possible, and to prevent vandalism by Danko or others. linas 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Aureline, does this mean that you have changed your vote? If so please have it reflected on the AfD voting page. -- Prof. Afshar 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aureline, Thank you for your objectivity. Please change your vote on the AfD page. Your suggestion is similar to Prof. Hewitt's. I will do my best, but it may take some time. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

When you are done editing for the day, please remove the in-use tag. I'd like to make a few minor changes/fixes. Also .. the correct way to tag the article is to stick in the template {{inuse}}. linas 15:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Graphics for Theory Section of Afshar experiment

Dear Drezet, Please bear in mind that the directly observed interference pattern (IP) is a fully visible one (V=1). The IP you have shown has a low visibility (V<1). If you replace it with an IP in which the dark fringes have zero intensity (i.e. V=1), the graphics would be correct. Please let me know what you wish to do. Regards. -- Prof. Afshar 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see the significance of observing the IP at the focal plain. This is not what I did (and not very desirable anyways) because by the time the wavefunctions reach the focal plane they have a substantial separation, which leads to very low visibilties at the edges of the Airy disks. (I am sure you know this, at least I expect you to!) It would be more appropriate to drop the talk about the focal plane altogether to prepare the reader's mind in light of the actual experiment, rather than divert it to something entirely unrelated. I suggest you REMOVE this part of the text: "If use a lens to observe the fringes in the back focal plane (F) the angle is given by :$sin(\alpha )\simeq tan(\alpha )=x/f\quad$ where :$f\quad$ is the focal length." and MOVE the IP back to where it was observed (immediately before the light enters the lens). That is the ideal place, as the two wavefunctions have maximal overlap, and a farfield IP is easily observed. For aesthetics, you can flip the IP vertically to make sure the IP pattern profile does not obscure the lens. Please note that the role of the lens is merely to help us gain which way information, nothing else! P.S. Please do not encourage Danko to engage in the discussion, I've had enough of his antics and won't waste my time answering him. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow Thanks!

The description of duality that you wrote got moved to Complementarity (physics). I just spent a few hours trying to clean it up, polishing details, etc. and I think it looks very good now. I also made a redirect from Englert-Greenberger duality to this article, although, perhaps, this material should be moved to that article. Anyway, thanks for this excellent bit of work. linas 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You said:

The title is sufficient to say what I want. Later on I will probably add something on entanglement in the complementartiy section since this an important point for many experiments. Drezet 7 /02/2006

A few quick remarks, if I may presume:

• you can answer here, instead of on my talk page, since I am "watching" this page, and I will notice when you respond.
• It looks like you are having trouble with your signature. Just use four tilde's to sign, like so: ~~~~
• When adding new content, think about what its "correct" title should really be. If the topic is known as "Englert-Greenberger duality" then that should be the main title, and not "complementarity (physics)". As an encyclopedia, topics should be packaged under thier own names, in "bite-size" pieces; if multiple topics are related, then a single sentance in one article, refereing to the other article, is often enough to point out the relationship.

Again, thanks linas 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Danko Georgiev

Dear Drezet, I wish to ban Danko Georgiev from Wikipedia for his repeated accusations of Fraud to me regarding my experiment [1] on the talk pages. My experimental results were verified by faculty from Harvard and other schools. I will not allow this idiot to ruin my reputation. He must be repudiated by the Wikipedia community. Any help you can offer in this regard would be appreciated.-- Afshar 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Afshardrezet3.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Afshardrezet3.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Afshar drezet.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Afshar drezet.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Aureliendrezet2.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Aureliendrezet2.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits by --Michael C. Price on Afshar experiment page

• Dear Aurelien, --Michael C. Price insists on using unsubstantiated claims without proper references on the article page. Regardless of the nature of his claims, I have requested that he does so, but instead he has produced at best irrelevant quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources. His edit follows:

Though Afshar's work is still the subject of ongoing interpretation and discussion, a significant portion of the scientific community is of the opinion that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity.

Some general criticisms are:

Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle are generally seen in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation. Since the latter is obeyed in Afshar's experiment it is not obvious how complementarity can be violated.

The modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference provides a mechanism for understanding the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

As Michael claims, those statments are supposedly "popular views" that preexisted my experiment, and as such must be present in peer-reviewed publication predating my work. All I have asked him to do is to provide such valid ref.s but he has persistently avoided doing so and instead engaged in personal attacks. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to be on Wikipeida constatntly, but I don't. This is turning to oneupmanship, and I don't have time for such antcis. Maybe he would heed your request. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I will be discussing this issue with Michael Price on the article talk page, and would highly appreciate if you could monitor our discussion and interject when you deem fit. I'm afraid it might get a little testy, as Michael has been persistent on personal attacks. Thanks very much for your help. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Englert-Greenberger

Hi Aurelian,

I found your analysis of the Englert-Greenberger duality relation very helpful and have created a page for it (copied from Complementarity (physics)). There are links between it and the Afshar experiment. I took the liberty of expanding some of the mathematical text for clarity for readers less aquainted with QM -- you'd better check it over for accuracy. I hope your research is going well -- it sounds fascinating.

Cheers,

--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Aureliendrezet2.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Aureliendrezet2.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you created this image yourself, please look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators, select one of those tags, and add it to the image. To do that, simply go to Image:Aureliendrezet2.png, click "edit this page", and add the appropriate tag. Be sure to remove the current tag indicating a lack of licensing!

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at User talk:Angr or at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not prophet

Dear Drezet, I don't understand your attitude, and why you want to ridicule someone who uses clear statement as mine. If I was pseudoscientist I would have feared to discuss in math terms, and would have stuck to discuss only philosophy, as math discussion reveals the pseudoscientist immediately and thoroughly. However I do exactly the opposite of what all pseudoscientists do, because I am working scientist, and despite that I also have my own advanced area of expertise, the discussion of a lens setup with two pinholes is not something so complicated that should be considered as expertise area reserved for top physicists only. Indeed it is exactly the opposite, noone, or few are the people who really are bothered to discuss such a basic thing. If you are interested of science, you may follow up the discussion that will be released in the next volume of Progress In Physics, as announced now, there is expected reply by Unruh. Coming issue. I have seen one withdrawn reply, and have rebutted several e-mails, and basicly I am not afraid of what Unruh may object. His position was proved by me to be inconsistent [also yours, see the conclusion section of my paper], so it will be no problem to simply pick up and show the inconsistency in the possible reply [unless of course Unruh does not decide to admit he has done an error]. So far, the editor has not sent me the ready reply by Unruh, nor I have seen Unruh's reply online Danko Georgiev MD 09:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture is released in Wikipedia under GFDL

Dear Drezet, you have uploaded the figure and you have released it under GFDL, so anyone can use it. Also I have provided reference to your paper in my paper, and anyone can verify himself that the image is derived modification of your image, where the changes are cosmetic, and colour removed. You cannot release something in Wikipedia, and then claim issues of ethics. I have not violated your will, if you did not want to release it under GFDL, then you'd better have used the copyright holder license with partial release, in that case, I would have not used your figure at first place, but would have drawn my own figure. Please be cool, and do not let the fact you dislike my personality influence on your decisions. See GFDL . GFDL does not divide people into ones that the author likes, and ones that the author does not like. Please contact me again if there are any problems with my reply. Danko Georgiev MD 09:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. I am not sure what is your purpose of all this, as I personally would have not bothered for any of the GFDL images released in Wikipedia, nor I will be "detective" who uses them - see I have released simulations of sine-Gordon solitons, at the page sine-Gordon equation. Nevertheless, please tell me what text will deeply satisfy you, and I will be glad to contact the Editor of Progress in Physics, and ask for inclusion of note in the online pdf of the journal. One option is explicitly writing under the image that it has been released under GFDL licence, so anyone can use it under these terms. The second option is to add message "Image released kindly under GFDL licence by A. Drezet", etc. I don't see why this changes anything, you'd better be interested in the physics, not what is around the physics. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 09:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry Danko, what you did was wrong and unethical (what else is new!). Here's the GNU Free Documentation License. Read the following: "VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." You need to put the license notice in the paper, attributing the Figure directly to its source in this case Drezet. Under the guidelines of GNU, Drezet can legally sue you, and the journal you are publishing in if you do not make the necessary correction. I suggest that you either remove the graphics, add the license notice and attribution, or wait to hear from Drezet's lawyer. Dear Drezet, please vote on the disputed text #4 at the bottom of the Afshar experiment talk page. OR must be removed ASAP.-- Prof. Afshar 12:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Afshar, please find yourself another amusement. Better be troubled by your own publications, and the quality of physics in them. Danko Georgiev MD 08:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Drezet, a note in the end of caption 3 will be put as requested by me "Image released under GNU free documentation licence by A. Drezet". I hope you realize that the fact I have quoted your work in my work, is indicator that I have never wanted to smuggle who is the creator of the image. Nor I believe that my cosmetic edits of the image violate GFDL, as I can edit the image any way I like according to the license. I don't understand why you raised the whole issue, as I told you before, I also have released many and high quality images in Wikipedia, but I do not care who uses them, nor I go to torment or harass the people who used my images. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GNU free licence + author inserted

Dear Drezet, please verify the corrected ARTICLE. In the caption of fig.3 has been explicitly added "Image has been released under GNU free documentation licence by A. Drezet". Everything is resolved by peaceful means. Let us now focus peacefully on physics, not doing war in internet. Yours, Danko Georgiev MD 10:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Drezet, thanks for your comment on my talk page. I also prefer clear discussion without external prejudices, and without unnecessary offences. I believe both of us are evolving scientist, so it is enough that one sees that his proof work/does not work, and honesty requires that when you see your own error you confess publicly. I have withdrawn from arXiv once, then blacklisted, yet this does not crush my optimism, nor crushes my honesty. Yet, you possibly do not realize the equivalence between Unruh's and Afshar's setup. My request is, please study first the Unruh's setup as it is simple. Then try to answer - is there which way as Unruh argues. My rebuttal of Unruh is explicit, as I force him to divide to zero, in order to get the which way claim. Well, once we resolve the Unruh's setup, we can debate on similarity and analogy with Afshar. I just request you to do the calculations of Unruh, after BS2, you get coherent state $\Psi =-1|6>$. The coherence here is equivalent with writing zero amplitude in front of state |5>, i.e. the state can be written as this $\Psi =\alpha _{1}|5>+\alpha _{2}|6>$, where $\alpha _{1}=0,\alpha _{2}=-1$. Now going after BS3 in Unruh's setup you get splitting by half of the state |6> going to both detectors, i.e. you have contributions from both path 1 and path 2 to each detector, so no which way. Close path 1, light goes to D2, close path 2, light goes to D1. Everything is clear at classical level, but this XOR mixture does not lead to correct intuition for the coherent setup. The problem is that Unruh NEEDS amplitudes from the zero in front of |5>. There is no way to bring back, the state 0 |5> into the game, without division to zero - yes, this is not allowed math procedure. I hope my sketch helps at least to fire your interest in explaining Unruh's setup. Forget for now about Afshar. Danko Georgiev MD 06:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unruh setup

Dear Drezet, I have seen that you discuss the Unruh setup, and I disagree with some of your conclusions. You can see this entry Unruh's interferometer, and read the references therein - the Unruh-Georgiev debate in Progress in Physics. I have provided one-to-one mapping between the waves inside the Unruh-Georgiev interferometer (the 8 waves are described for first time by me), and I map them onto the Qureshi's waves for lens. If you see I provide 4 more waves which Qureshi has cancelled. Finally I prove that there is no which way information in coherent setup, and everything is simple add/subtraction game of 8 waves. Don't be frustrated by the hyberbolic sine and cosine functions, its simple maths. Danko Georgiev MD 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Drezet, please check my user page User:Danko Georgiev for my summary on Afshar and Unruh setups. I still believe you might have some rationality and realize that I am correct all along. What you need to do is to forget about the frustration for 10-15 minutes, and check the theory I have briefly outlined. Danko Georgiev (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Image:Afshar drezet.png

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Afshar drezet.png, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)