Official Afshar Experiment Blog Questions 1 - Latest Comments http://irims.org/blog/index.php?blog=1&disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Alireza Naficy [Visitor] in response to: Questions Welcome! Sun, 15 May 2005 05:47:18 +0000 Alireza Naficy [Visitor] c616@http://irims.org/blog/ <p>Please tell me:<br /> Are you still working on your opinion or no. If yes, have you reached to any new thing, yet?<br /> Regards.</p> Please tell me:
Are you still working on your opinion or no. If yes, have you reached to any new thing, yet?
Regards.

]]> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/questions_welcome?blog=1#c616 Paul Valletta [Visitor] in response to: Questions Welcome! Sun, 27 Mar 2005 03:27:11 +0000 Paul Valletta [Visitor] c527@http://irims.org/blog/ <p>If a Photon moves by(across the line of sight a detector), there is some distance between each, the intervening space borders both observer and the observed. The question of what travels from one to the other? if a Particle travels across a line of sight, form a hidden location(unobserved) to one where it becomes detected, the moment it is regestered a, &#8221; click on a photon detector", then it is at two locations, in one instant. Taking the Einstein local value for a Photon to be hv, interpretation by Bohr gives the Photon a Wave Quantity regestered at the detector, thus the particle-wave duality.</p> <p>In Ashfar&#8217;s experiment does not have &#8216;two&#8217; detectors, a wave-detector AND a particle detector. The consequence of which becomes apparent if one does a variant of Ashfar&#8217;s experiment. If one does the experiment with TWO FOCUSING lenses instead of one(the second focusing mirror replacing the mirrors), with vertical wires placed on the opposite side of the second focusing lens, then the mirrors are place as for the original Afshar experiment. Iam asking if you have considered an extension to your experiment?..</p> <p>If one has TWO focusing lenses, the second one with the vertical wires on the other side of the second focusing lens, would not this &#8220;reverse&#8221; your initial focusing lens, therby strengthening your experiment conclusions?</p> If a Photon moves by(across the line of sight a detector), there is some distance between each, the intervening space borders both observer and the observed. The question of what travels from one to the other? if a Particle travels across a line of sight, form a hidden location(unobserved) to one where it becomes detected, the moment it is regestered a, ” click on a photon detector", then it is at two locations, in one instant. Taking the Einstein local value for a Photon to be hv, interpretation by Bohr gives the Photon a Wave Quantity regestered at the detector, thus the particle-wave duality.

In Ashfar’s experiment does not have ‘two’ detectors, a wave-detector AND a particle detector. The consequence of which becomes apparent if one does a variant of Ashfar’s experiment. If one does the experiment with TWO FOCUSING lenses instead of one(the second focusing mirror replacing the mirrors), with vertical wires placed on the opposite side of the second focusing lens, then the mirrors are place as for the original Afshar experiment. Iam asking if you have considered an extension to your experiment?..

If one has TWO focusing lenses, the second one with the vertical wires on the other side of the second focusing lens, would not this “reverse” your initial focusing lens, therby strengthening your experiment conclusions?

]]> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/questions_welcome?blog=1#c527 Quantum Mirror [Visitor] in response to: Questions Welcome! Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:07:16 +0000 Quantum Mirror [Visitor] c514@http://irims.org/blog/ <p>Dear Professor afshar</p> <p>I was using this as a test. The page 2 has no Leave a comment section and I was wondering if this would go to page 1 or 2. You can delete if you want to.</p> Dear Professor afshar

I was using this as a test. The page 2 has no Leave a comment section and I was wondering if this would go to page 1 or 2. You can delete if you want to.

]]> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/questions_welcome?blog=1#c514 afshar [Member] in response to: Questions Welcome! Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:49:36 +0000 [Member] c512@http://irims.org/blog/ <p>PLEASE CONTINUE YOUR POSTS HERE: <a href="http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2005/03/13/questions_welcome_1#comments" rel="nofollow ugc">http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2005/03/13/questions_welcome_1#comments</a></p> PLEASE CONTINUE YOUR POSTS HERE: http://irims.org/blog/index.php/2005/03/13/questions_welcome_1#comments

]]> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/questions_welcome?blog=1#c512 afshar [Member] in response to: Questions Welcome! Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:45:36 +0000 [Member] c510@http://irims.org/blog/ <p>Dear Quantum Mirror,</p> <p>My IT tech. is working on a second page. It&#8217;ll be up soon.</p> Dear Quantum Mirror,

My IT tech. is working on a second page. It’ll be up soon.

]]> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/questions_welcome?blog=1#c510 Quantum Mirror [Visitor] in response to: Questions Welcome! Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:39:21 +0000 Quantum Mirror [Visitor] c509@http://irims.org/blog/ <p>Dear Professor afshar</p> <p>I have been looking at the HTML for this site and I think all you would need to do to reduce the size of the page is to change the archive dates. anyone that needed to see the archives there is a link at the top of the page above where you log in.</p> Dear Professor afshar

I have been looking at the HTML for this site and I think all you would need to do to reduce the size of the page is to change the archive dates. anyone that needed to see the archives there is a link at the top of the page above where you log in.

]]> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/questions_welcome?blog=1#c509 Peter Tanguay [Visitor] in response to: Questions Welcome! Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:18:48 +0000 Peter Tanguay [Visitor] c508@http://irims.org/blog/ <p>Dear CTN Hoggins,</p> <p> You make many confident statements that the Afshar experiment does not discredit the CI. Can you be more specific? where exactly does it go wrong? I dont see it.</p> <p>In addition, Physics and science is based on measurement. A real experiment does that. a thought experiment is used to direct possible physical experiments. I dont know how you can argue measurement is best served by pure thought. It is best served by pure measurement. </p> <p>In my previous entry, I have presented a thought experiment inspired by The Afshar experiment&#8217;s measurement of the IP. How do you explain that?</p> <p>Peter Tanguay</p> Dear CTN Hoggins,

You make many confident statements that the Afshar experiment does not discredit the CI. Can you be more specific? where exactly does it go wrong? I dont see it.

In addition, Physics and science is based on measurement. A real experiment does that. a thought experiment is used to direct possible physical experiments. I dont know how you can argue measurement is best served by pure thought. It is best served by pure measurement.

In my previous entry, I have presented a thought experiment inspired by The Afshar experiment’s measurement of the IP. How do you explain that?

Peter Tanguay

]]> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/questions_welcome?blog=1#c508 Quantum Mirror [Visitor] in response to: Questions Welcome! Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:12:53 +0000 Quantum Mirror [Visitor] c507@http://irims.org/blog/ <p>Dear CTN Hoigns</p> <p>&#8221; if Prof Afshar wishes to discredit the copenhagen interpretation he should do so theoretically rather than expeirmentally. All he needs to do is show that the copenhagen interpretation makes a different prediction from the quantum formalism. An application of the Copenhagen interpretation to his experimental setup gives the results observed. Any difficulties are just in the wording, and hence uninteresting to the scientific community.&#8221;</p> <p>I don&#8217;t know of one instance where Prof. afshar said he had discredited the copenhagen interpretation. Where did you get that idea? I think it is revealing that you put more credibility in theory than experiment. Theories are just wording applied to experimental <br /> outcome.</p> <p>&#8221; should try to come up with the simplest possible thought experiment which demonstrates a violation of the principle of complementarity. In this way we should be able to isolate the problem exactly and see whether it is a serious flaw in the copenhagen interpretation, whether it is a verbal distinction which can easily be fixed, or whether it is absolutely no problem at all.&#8221;</p> <p>Huh? Prof. afshar has come up with a real experiment which is very simple and demonstrates a violation of the principle of complementarity. Why would you put more stock in a thought experiment? Again you are trying to tie together the principle of complementarity and the copenhagen interpretation. The only flaw that has been mentioned here is complementarity. You say this experiment is uninteresting. I can see why, you are confused about which principle, interpretation, formalism or mechanics it has violated.</p> Dear CTN Hoigns

” if Prof Afshar wishes to discredit the copenhagen interpretation he should do so theoretically rather than expeirmentally. All he needs to do is show that the copenhagen interpretation makes a different prediction from the quantum formalism. An application of the Copenhagen interpretation to his experimental setup gives the results observed. Any difficulties are just in the wording, and hence uninteresting to the scientific community.”

I don’t know of one instance where Prof. afshar said he had discredited the copenhagen interpretation. Where did you get that idea? I think it is revealing that you put more credibility in theory than experiment. Theories are just wording applied to experimental
outcome.

” should try to come up with the simplest possible thought experiment which demonstrates a violation of the principle of complementarity. In this way we should be able to isolate the problem exactly and see whether it is a serious flaw in the copenhagen interpretation, whether it is a verbal distinction which can easily be fixed, or whether it is absolutely no problem at all.”

Huh? Prof. afshar has come up with a real experiment which is very simple and demonstrates a violation of the principle of complementarity. Why would you put more stock in a thought experiment? Again you are trying to tie together the principle of complementarity and the copenhagen interpretation. The only flaw that has been mentioned here is complementarity. You say this experiment is uninteresting. I can see why, you are confused about which principle, interpretation, formalism or mechanics it has violated.

]]> http://irims.org/blog/index.php/questions_welcome?blog=1#c507