Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 19

Definitions, and semantic load of physical terms
''" For example Danko Georgiev works from a pure math position and a QM definition of complementarity. He arrives at a situation in which he has two incompatible equations. The "=" sign doesn't work. And so one divides the universe in two, one in which one equation obtains, and the other in which the other equation obtains." Carl Looper''


 * I am pleased that at least one person has realized the importance of my paper, and has verified the math content of it. The next step is to find out what have proved Afshar. While I am prone to accept (after suitable quotation provided by Afshar) that Bohr's view/interpretation of complementarity is wrong, I have mathematically proved that Afshar's claim to have violated the duality relation is inconsistent, and also I have proved that Afshar has not violated the mathematical definition of complementarity that is very nicely and profoundly linked to the (reduced) density matrix of the photon (qubit in general). I have suggested to Afshar that he has gone "too far" but he did not take seriously my advice. Only the claim that Afshar has disproved Bohr's interpretation of complementarity is possibly acceptable [yet, I need to see exact quotation by Bohr where Bohr exposes his own views]. But the absurd Afshar's claim to have proved $$V^{2} + K^{2} = 2$$ deserves more attention by all participants of this discussion, because such a huge mistake immediately must question Afshar's competence in QM. Again I want to stress on my main thesis which has never changed - even if there are no wires there is no which way information. This is clear - Afshar starts from wrong premise, and derives wrong conclusions. Unruh and others accept the wrong premise of which way information and then wrongly try to save complementarity. So please do not play with the semantic load of physical terms, mathematical definitions have been already done by physicists, I did not invent them, just have shown how a real scientist must approach the problem through rigorous mathematics. Danko Georgiev MD 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is where I draw the line on insanity in Wikipedia. As discussed before the material presented in Danko's paper is Original Research and will be removed from the main article due to the admin. Gareth Hughes's request and Danko's own promise: "I will prepare an article on complementarity in Afshar's experiment that I hope will be strong enough to pass a peer-reviewing and get published in journal - therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued." Your questioning the which-way information in my experiment is a bigger claim than my claim on violation of Complementarity. There is a good reason why Unruh, Drezet and Motl disagreed with you, the conservation of linear momentum ensures validity of which-way information (See my paper on the crossed-beam experiment AIP Cof. Proc. 810, (2006) 294-299.) It has been explained to you a number of times by world class physicists before (in a not so flattering language, which if need be will be publicized), and just because an uniformed person (Carl Looper) happens to agree with your nonsense (I'm sure due to lack of knowledge about your pathological past which included claiming I had falsified facts and committed scientific fraud) you feel justified to advertise your OR in Wikipedia. I am removing the ref.s to your paper and anyone who disputes it can start an arbitration request. I will not allow an article on my work to be tainted with utter crackpottery. -- Prof. Afshar 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Afshar, please restore the link to my paper, and please do not use insults. Otherwise I will inform one of the admins that you are deleting entries without discussion. I am surprized to hear that Looper is "uninformed" simply because he understands logical gates [as computer scientist], while you are not afraid to go into mathematical inconsistency. Calm down and restore the link to my pre-print, it is considered for submission in journal, and don't forget that your erroneous work was rejected many times for publication, and appeared only in conference proceedings. Why you don't post the peer-reviewer comments from Physical Reviews? The public will be interested why these guys have rejected your paper. If you don't follow the rules and take such self-initiatives in the future, I will be glad to inform the admins for your actions Danko Georgiev MD 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not respected your own promise above, so don't expect me to treat you otherwise. For a short time I hoped you had pursued some education on QM and wrote a proper paper, but it is clear to me now you are hopelessly delusional. As for Carl, I hope he has misunderstood what you claim regarding the which-way information, otherwise he would have to face the same sanction. The issue about the logical framework of Complementarity was worked out a long time ago by Prof. Robert B. Griffiths in his Consistent histories treatment of QM, and if Carl wishes to attribute that to you then he has another one coming (again I'm sure he is uninformed on this issue.) On the which-way information topic, you cannot rule out 300 years of physics on Wikipedia without a SINLGE physicist agreeing with you and get away with it. The world IS NOT as crazy as you think. -- Prof. Afshar 08:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Afshar, it is funny that you resort to consistent histories, where at first place my argument is that your work is mathematically inconsistent. Do you realize what you are talking about? Danko Georgiev MD 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Afshar, I have promised to write a complete paper showing mathemativcally the inconsistency of your work, and I have done it. My paper is in a process of journal peer-reviewing and please remember that your own work has been rejected for publication and still [2-3 years after your first announcement] there is no journal article describing your experiment - only popular magazines, newspapers, public lectures and conference proceedings - all together this is self-promotion, and noone has supported you from the physical community. If you count yourself as physicist, then you are yourself the only one that agrees with the conclusions of your work. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia in the future. Danko Georgiev MD 09:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I dare you to present your paper at Ivy schools or physics conferences. Let's see how you can handle the physicist audience instead of computer scientists here. I advise you not to get into more trouble than you can handle.-- Prof. Afshar 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I work across a number of disciplines, which includes, but is not limited to computer science. I'd rather be called a crackpot than subscribe to the debate taking place here.--Carl A Looper 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Carl, I work also across a number of disciplines with neuroscience and quantum mechanics being the two of which I am most concerned. I also don't like to be involved in such a parodic conversations, but I think I do this for the people who will lose their time in reading Afshar's promo, instead of trying some better source like the introductory lectures in QM of some recognized professor in any University in the world. Since I am interested to know what the world is, I have never imposed my own prejudices on the physical picture of the world. So I strongly disagree with some of the antirealist statements that "the moon is not there if nobody looks at it". Everything captured in the density matrix of the moon is a physical reality, and the fact that this reality is not such as the Newtonian one is not a problem if you want to really know what the world is, and not try to "insert" the world in the framework of your own prejudices. So I accept as only axiom that "there is real world", and from that on, I study this world with the tools of mathematics. Danko Georgiev MD 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Danko, I work in a somewhat opposite space from yourself where I deal with the processing of image data as much as the synthesis of such. In relation to your real world I could be said to work in a fictional world - the space of representation. But I fully understand your world (well as much as you have revealed). In my world the moon is not "there" until one looks at it for the simple reason that the moon with which I work is what we might otherwise call the "image of the moon". If you are not looking at the moon, (the image of the moon) is not being experienced. I find experience a rich environment. I don't treat it as real but I don't treat it as just an image either. I have a rich source of philosophical texts from which I construct various ways of re-reading the image. Phenomenology is an obvious one but not the only one. And of course QM is one I use a lot - not the formalism per se, or indeed any of the interpretations (most of which I find tiresome) but the philosophys that feed into such. In relation to the xor operator, I use such as something which escapes it's original purpose, (Boolean analysis) and becomes a regenerating operator rather than a logical concluder. --Carl A Looper 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Carl, I will show a loophole in your thinking, and this is based on much reading of philosophy literature, much more that one can imagine from my posts. I hope some day I will be able to release in final form all of my manuscripts and papers that I store in my PC, and have started 4-5 years ago. The antirealism that you speak of has been disproved by Karl Popper long time ago, and I will present only the essence of the argument: You do NOT work only with the "image of the world" because the semantic content of the word "image" is that your "imaginary model" is in certain "relationship with the real world". So the meaning of "image" means that you have postulated even before starting the creation of your "image model" that the properties of your "imaginary model| are "shared" by the real world also. So if you deny my thesis, you will not be allowed to say that you investigate "image of the world" but I will say you investigate "model that has nothing to do with the real world", and you cannot object to this. So you need axiom to verify that your "imaginary model" is "image of the real world" - so it is called "physical model". Please keep in mind that the axiom you use is the one of realists also - not all properties of the world are possibly captured by your model, but inversely all properties of the model are postulated to be "shared" by the real world also. Thus you risk to run into math inconsistency [and I suspect you did it] if you argue against the realist position. p.s. I have now understood what kind of computer science you are dealing with, so thanx. But your extrapolation of your experience with visial image processing to other fields of study might be delusive. Thiank about this - the image processing relies on strong formal systems, such as existence of one-to-one maps, and ZFC set theory which is very powerful. Yet, the requirements of consistency are very basic, and are formulated in propositional calculus, so you cannot attribute "image illusion logic" to problems that are formulated in more fundamental logic, where everything to be solved is whether the whole construction is consistent or not at first place. Please do not confuse set theory one-to-one mapping and consistency Danko Georgiev MD 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Danko, I was over simplifying what I do. Popper is one of my sources as well. And I see you are a good philosopher. Also I'm not denying your thesis at all. Indeed I very much apreciate it. It is direct, straight to the point, and makes no fuss at all. Also, I don't extrapolate image processing to other fields - on the contrary - I use information from other fields for the image processing. To make such processing intelligent - to give the processor an "imaginary model" with which to read the image data. But I don't think of the model as real. I treat the data with the utmost respect and the mathematical model with a sort of temporary validity. It always retains it's mathematical validity. But it's relative importance is determined by circumstances that are neither in the image nor in math. --Carl A Looper 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Carl, In this post I reply to your critique in the previous section that I live in "imaginary world of axioms". I will first tell you that I am realist, and I do mathematics, but I never forget about the Duhem–Quine thesis that is at 100% true. You obviously do not consider the "holistic approach" to science. The Wiki entry on Duhem–Quine thesis is not so good (I can contribute to improve it) so I will summarize what is important for you to understand realism + holism: you have notice that a single experiment cannot cannot falsify a theory. You can always invent "new" and "novel" interpretation, for example the discovery of Neptune via perturbation of Uranus orbit. One may either accept that Newtonian gravity theory is false, or may invent explanation with perturbing body. Now the confirmation of the perturbing body is considered as glorious success of the Newtonian theory. In analogous fashion one should consider that always a physical theory is put to the test by all of its axioms and predictions, and usually with connection to other external knowledge [axioms, hypothesis, prejudices]. So in order to explain a given experiment one should always test its own formal system of axioms. What I have done is to show that QM formalism is incompatible with "which way" claim at first place. And this is a huge and amazing thing because it is a theorem. Unless one shows a loophole in my theorem he cannot speak about interpretations. Basicly I have proved that the "which way" is founded on some intuitive classical notions external for the QM mathematics, and once accepted these external beliefs make the whole system unstable - [i] either one uses inconsistent formal system, or [ii] one may try to erase the inconsistency by accepting "new axioms" that must be inserted in the standard QM formalism, so that they introduce "exceptional cases" and thus in all these exceptions the inconsistency with the standard QM mathematics will be ignored by the new axioms and converted into consistency (example Russel's set is paradoxical -> Russel's set is a proper class, so simply Russel's set is NOT a set but in the framework of new axiomatic base for the set theory). Danko Georgiev MD 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Danko, I do not mean to say axioms are imaginary. They are, however interchangeable with respect to a given image. It depends on the purpose. For example, I can build a computer model of Afshar's experiment and generate the data we otherwise see done in a physical experiment. We can put both images side by side, and if we have done it correctly they will be identical (within reason). But that doesn't change the fact that they were produced by entirely different means. The images are the same but their method of construction is not. In relation to the same data one can interchange models. Which model to use depends on a number of things. Are we interested in producing an identical result? Are we looking for something in the computer simulation that we can't physically obtain. Are we making a television documentary on QM and need only demonstrate the wave function, etc. Each of these require different models. And each model is capable of producing different images. I hope you understand - because I am not critiquing your model. The model you have provided is appropriate to the task at hand but it is not the only model. We might need new models. --Carl A Looper 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably time for me to write a paper as well. The value I see in Danko's paper is it's contribution to what a non-classical reading of the experiment can be. We are all aware that there is a disconnect between classical and quantum theoretical descriptions of the "same thing". To say there is no "which-way" information is, from a purely QM point of view, entirely correct. That this disconnects with a classical description is obvious. It is not necessary that Danko do any more than he has done. Afshar's approach is to frame the experiment in the same terms that Bohr might have done - ie. classically. And this has the advantage of confronting Bohr on his own terms. It makes the task of exressing a violation of Bohr's principle that much more intelligent. Both Bohr and Einstein could see a potential "paradox" in the principle. We should not be surprised if one is forthcoming, either in the form of V^2 + K^2 = 2, or in any other mathematical embodiment of the principle. Danko has identified, from a purely formal elaboration of the principle, and QM, (less any classical assumptions) an internal violation. The experiment itself yeilds an "external" or observational one requiring no more intelligence than that of an undergraduate student with some critical capacity. And Afshar's mathematical expression is one that should embarass Bohr (rather than Afshar). The irony is that pure QM has dominated the field for so long that the principle of comlementarity - as an escape clause - has been forgotten. And at that precise moment when it is experimentally undone, as distinct from just ignored, there is a redundant attempt to restore it. This irony is only part of the picture. I'm sure there is more to investigate. And a more thorough reading of Bohr is required. --Carl A Looper 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To assume that the conservation laws belong purely to classical physics is not only a sign of ignorance of QM formalism, but a belittling of both Bohr and Einstein who used it to derive QM entanglement, a cornerstone of modern Quantum Optics, and communication. To assume that XOR logic was discovered by Danko, well, that is simply dumb! (no offence) Mutually exclusive properties are shown as XOR in logic and from Bohr on to Robert B. Griffiths physicists working on the topic have been fully aware of incompatibility of such pairs of observables, which from QM point of view, DO NOT COMMUTE. If you wish to attribute such QM logic discussions to Danko, then I will be the first one to ensure your paper doesn't get published, because not acknowledging the true originators of ideas is simply unethical, if not downright plagiarism. I Suggest you take a look at Prof. Griffiths' classic book "Consistent Quantum Theory" and see for yourself why he is an expert physicist, aptly elected to the "Computer and information sciences" of the National Academy of Sciences. He is a man of highest integrity, whose rights I am proud to uphold in the wilderness of Wikipedia, regardless of my professional disagreements with him and others. Just look at section 26.2 (discussing precisely the Mach-Zehnder interferometer using the density matrix analysis) and explain to me why Danko did not even mention Griffiths in his "paper", even though he knew about him from my previous discussions with him. Danko's first paper was a clear case of copying and pasting incoherent content from internet sites which was pulled from Phil Sci archive after my protest (I do not tend to forget unscrupulous behavior). I know you are a fair well-meaning individual, so I invite you to call a spade, a spade, will you? Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure where I implied that Danko invented entanglement. I am quite aware of his sources and my own first understanding of xor logic was in 1982 when I purchased a 64K microcomputer. One of the first things I did was to program it to reproduce a twin slit interference pattern. In machine code. My bookshelf is littered with heaps of physics books. I collect them. My favourite is a crumbing textbook I picked for a dollar in which Eddington discusses the recent discoverys of quantum theory. So lets leave assumptions of where people are coming from to the side. It is just the source of irrelevant animosity. --Carl A Looper 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, the breif I gave used the word "classical" in the context of Bohr's use of the word which has a somewhat different meaning to "classical physics". Bohr uses the word to mean the language in which an experiment is defined and discussed rather than than the substance of what the experiment was otherwise expressing. I took this as understood. --Carl A Looper 02:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But look, in any case, I very much appreciate the Griffiths reference. I haven't read it but I'm going to do just that. --Carl A Looper 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Afshar, you are completely ignorant when it comes to mathematics. I have proven mathematical theorem, and in order to prove a math theorem I don't need to read any physicist or quote any physicist. It is analogous to claim that if I prove the Pythagoras' theorem I have to quote Pythagoras. Your claims of plagiarism are pathetic. One in principle could have never read the Pythagoras original proof and still claim he has a proof of Pythagoras theorem. I have never read Griffiths' book, that is why I have not quoted him. Since I have presented a mathematical proof I am not obliged to quote anyone. I have applied only elementarity mathematics and used basic knowledge in matrix formalism and Dirac's notations, so please don't make me laugh with your claim that every time when one uses "matrix", "ket", "consistent", etc., he must immeditely put reference to Griffiths' work. Also the "consistent history" has strict definition, which is quite different from "mathematical consistency" that I use in my work. "Mathematical consistency" is preliminary requirement for one to build physical models, and the "consistent history approach to QM" in particular. p.s. I have clearly stated that my mathematical exposition is based on the lectures of prof. Bob Eisenstein, yet if there are any mathematical errors in my proof these should not be attributed to prof. Eisenstein. The fact that you think my work "copy-pasted" is very bizzare. Can you show me please where in internet one has written the mathematical exposition of Unruh's setup? Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 01:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you are writing a high-school paper, you don't need to mention your sources (even that is frowned upon in the US, maybe not in Japan), but if you are writing what you claim to be a scholarly paper, there are strict standards. You cannot claim originality simply because you are unaware of the known literature. There is very little sympathy for a pompous ignoramus who makes big unsubstantiated claims. You must tread very carefully lest you step on someone's toes, especially in a high caliber field such as quantum mechanics and quantum logic, where so many experts have put their life's work into classic papers and books. You need to educate yourself for years at graduate level studies in order to know who's done what, and understand the state of the current literature, because otherwise the best you can do is to reinvent the wheel, and all that of course, after you have obtained an undergraduate level of physical understanding (which you clearly haven't, as pointed out by Prof. Unruh, Drezet and others.) Furthermore, outrageous statements like "Therefore the correct (experimentally plausible and mathematically consistent) exposition of Complementarity introduced by Georgiev in 2004..." or "This is a very deep argument raised by Georgiev (Wikipedia, 2004)..." only prove your delusions of grandeur, and utter ignorance of the literature. So to make the story short, essentially, there is nothing new in your "paper", and whatever new idea you offer (e.g. lack of which-way information in two coherent beams) is plain wrong, and your stubborn insistence on it is the very definition of crackpottery. Conservation laws are obeyed in QM regardless of the coherence state of the wavefnction(s). -- Prof. Afshar 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never violated conservation law in my exposition. The "which way" claim is based on claimed one-to-one correspondence which is not the case. Quantum amplitudes from one pinhole reach both detectors, yet at one of the detectors in single pinhole experiment they destructively interfere, while at the other detector they constructively interfere and this is analogous to Unruh's setup. What you don't understand is that this interference is from rays coming from different part of the same pinhole, since the pinhole diameter is greater than the wavelength of the photons [see single slit diffraction]. I am already convinced that rational conversation with you is impossible, I am writing all this for other readers interested to know why you are wrong. Danko Georgiev MD 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. Keep talking to the interested parties in their own user talk pages and leave this page alone as you had promised to the admin. Garzo. -- Prof. Afshar 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not good. You have offended once again me personally, where you have classified my work as "crackpoterry" in the "Edit summary" of your vandalism of the main article. If you revert your edit, I will be glad to continue the discussion on Afshar experiment at Physics Forums blog in more professional environment. Also I expect that the admin will soon advice you not to vandalize the main article, and stop classifying the work of others with insulting adjectives. Revert your edit, and I will go without special appologize from your side for the insulting behavior of yours. Danko Georgiev MD 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look Danko, I hope you do not want to escalate things to a point that leads to your banning from Wikipedia for good, just keep your promise to Garzo, and stay away from this page. An no, I will neither revert my edit, nor apologize for mentioning the obvious, as pointed out publicly by Prof. Unruh, Drezet and others. You are further proving my point with your every new reply.-- Prof. Afshar 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Afshar, keep continuing your promo vandalism. I personally never asked anybody to add as reference my paper to this promo article. Danko Georgiev MD 06:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is not a promo, as I have not written any of it. I only make sure that utter nonsense does not pollute the already difficult to follow article. And since you have "never asked anybody to add as reference" your "paper", you should not care about its removal. Talk about promo!-- Prof. Afshar 06:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember the "already difficult to follow article" just before 1 year was "very easy to follow article" where you, and some sockputtet friends of yours have written the whole article (promo). So don't make me laugh, the article is promo, and it bears your name just because of your yellow-press promotion. I suspect that such experiment with lens and wires has been performed by many physicists without noticing that they violate complementarity, that is why they did not publish anything about it. If somebody nominates the article for deletion be sure I will be the first one to vote for that. Danko Georgiev MD 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go with your pathological lies again. Stop making a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. You were warned by admin. Garzo from making false accusations before, and you still keep making such comments, so don't be surprised of the fallout.-- Prof. Afshar 13:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing the article. Avoid personal attacks and name calling.

Further remarks: I object to referring to complementarity principle in the following terms:
 * Bohr's principle of complementarity is a philosophical system applied in experimental physics.

I also remind you that an unpublished archive paper is generally not a reliable source. As to what complemantariry is, here's what Asher Peres says (p149 Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods)


 * Its meanimng is that some types of predictions Are possible while others are not, because they are related to mutually incompatbile tests.

Here's what Roland Omnès states (p49 Understanding Quantum Physics)
 * The complematarity principle states that mutually excvlusive modes of language can be applied to the description of an atomic object, although not simultaneously.

In any case, both these authors agree that complementarity says there is no logical picture (obeying classical propositional logic) that can simultaneously describe and be used to reason about all properties of a quantum system S. --CSTAR 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear CSTAR, if by name-calling you are talking about my characterization of Danko, I have simply quoted the public words used about this gentleman by other leading physicists who had the misfortune of interacting with him. Much more is said in private communications that would not be outed if this individual stops his antics. As for the definition of Complementarity, we should use what is in the literature starting with Greenberger and Yasin's formulation of Bohr's assertions. However, I will not (as never have) add any text to the article, but am happy to suggest it here, in case someone like you wishes to include it in the article. Regards. -- Prof. Afshar 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll include anything that's supported by the literature; we should however make sure that we agree with its meaning. It makes no sense to include quotes to which we cannot agree on the meaning.
 * I think there's been a lot of name-calling and I wasn't referring specifically to your characterization of Danko. Danko clearly is not exempt from this charge either. Carl Looper's response to Michael Price is not far behind.
 * And while we're on the subject Michael Price is not exempt either.--Carl A Looper 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But I remind you of one your gems
 * He's a petulant child who likes to throw the book at people. But he mistakes the last letter of his surname for a 'k'. 
 * I don't see this response is justified by anything he said. --CSTAR 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I plead guilty. --Carl A Looper 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, we should stick to what's in published sources concerning criticism of the experiment (with a few exceptions -- Motl's criticism from his blog merits inclusion). As far as the experiment itself we should stick to a description of the setup (as is now done) with  a brief account of why it is claimed to prove anything.  None of this is considered endorsement, certainly not by me.
 * --CSTAR 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You should know that the paper on the experiment has been accepted for publication in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal, and has now the backing of a number of notable physicists. I cannot reveal the journal or the physicists backing it due to the embargo, but will do so as soon as I get the green light from the publisher.-- Prof. Afshar 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but does this affect anything I said above?--CSTAR 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was FYI.-- Prof. Afshar 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not happy with "philosophical system" either. It is philosophy as far as Bohr is concerned. But whether we can categorise it as a "philosophical system applied in physics" is somewhat conflating it. The math is applied. But the philosophy is broader. It gets applied in domains that are not necessarily connected to "exerimental physics". It also resurfaces in interpretational expeditions. --Carl A Looper 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Danko's Inferences
Hi Danko,

I saw for a brief moment your images and comments but then they disappeared. Looked great. But I wish you'd stop seeing in your own work proof that "other" models are therefore wrong. They very well could be but until you see such models you should refrain from assuming they are incorrect. I have a very interesting model I'm developing which I think you'll appreciate. And I think Afshar will as well. And by the way, although I enjoy your paper you are wrong to conclude I used the wrong density matrix. I didn't use any density matrix at all. That could very well be a fault but you don't know that. Until you know what method I did use you don't know anything at all. Stay happy. I fully support what you are doing.

Carl


 * Carl, I moved the material to your user talk page. Feel free to continue there, but do not bring that stuff over here. Thank you for your cooperation!--Prof. Afshar


 * No problem Prof Afshar. --Carl A Looper 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)