Talk:Afshar experiment

Specific critiques section

Reading through the article, this section seems to be a big mess to me. The back and forth doesn't give the reader much background to what the critiques are. Why is which way information important? What does Afshar say the implications of his results are? Why are these important? What is the importance of the critiques? Could the article be better served by a more general section detailing the impact of the experiment, what is the major views of the scientific community on the experiment. This shouldn't include the counters by Afshar, without more explaination behind the Specific Critiques section, it reads like a mess to me, and it takes up over half the article in a back and forth arguement.Savage1987 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Experiment illustration

I found it obscure by this statment: "which is why we see the pinholes separately in the image plane close to the mirrors before the photon-detectors." Would it be possible to add illustrations for that image plane position in the pictures?

101.99.18.130 (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)PQdzung

Tabish q paper

David Eppstein had removed one of the entries from Specific critiques section, apparently with the argument that the cited work was published by a publisher who is now believed to be "predatory". I don't think that is a justifiable reason since the article cites arxiv papers and also articles on personal websites. I have this undone that edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabish q (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The above paper is also on the arxiv (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701109). This directed at David Eppstein who thinks that this paper is not reliably published. Tabish q (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the content that Tabish wishes to add, is as follows, inserted just under the discussion of W. G. Unruh's reaction:

• Tabish Qureshi (Centre for Theoretical Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi),

• Qureshi, in his paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, does a wave-packet analysis of the Afshar experiment, and argues that even though Afshar's experiment has genuine interference, individual detectors clicking do not give which-path information. Through a mathematical analysis he shows that in the region of overlap of the wave-packets, if the state is such that the modulus square of the wave-function gives an interference pattern, the which-path information is necessarily lost.

As this is a WP:SELFCITE, would editors here please discuss whether this source is reliable, and the proposed content is supported by the source, and if this is appropriate WP:WEIGHT for this content? Thx Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Contest deletion

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but not new to quantum measurement, having published four peer-reviewed articles on the subject. I don't know if I'm using the proper forum for my concern. Hope this is the right place to make my case.

I added three paragraphs to the Afshar experiment, which were quickly deleted, because it says they were 'fringe' physics. I'm sure my addition is not fringe physics since it's based on the emphatic assertion of our new Nobel laureate, Roger Penrose, subsequently reiterated in great mathematical detail by Mohr at the NIST and Smith and Raymer at Oxford U. I want to contest the deletion of my addition, and tried to do that yesterday, but don't presently see that critique anywhere on the Afshar page.

Please tell me what's become of my protest from yesterday, and how I ought to continue to contest deletion of my addition to the page.D bar x (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)