## Afshar experimental refutation of Bohr??

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nDoes anybody have information about a claim by Kathryn Cramer (apparently\ndaughter of John Cramer) that on April 27, 2004, Shahriar S. Afshar\npresented at Texas A&M the results of an optical experiment,\n\n"in which he demonstrates that wave interference is present even when one is\ndetermining through which pinhole a photon passes. This result is in direct\ncontradiction to Neils Bohr\'s Principle of Complementarity &lt;snip&gt;.\n\n"Afshar\'s trick is to find the location of the minimum points of wave\ninterference, place one or more wires at these minimum points, and observe\nhow much light is intercepted when one is determining the pinhole through\nwhich the photons passed. &lt;Snip&gt; the Afshar Experiment falsifies the\nCopenhagen Interpretation, which requires the absence of interference in a\nparticle-type measurement. It also falsifies the Many-Worlds Interpretation\nwhich tells us to expect no interference between \'worlds\' that are\nphysically distinguishable, e.g., that correspond to the photon\'s measured\npassage through one pinhole or the other."\n\nhttp://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000530.html\n\nAlthough I see that Afshar did speak at Texas A&M on that date, I find\nnothing about it outside of Ms. Cramer\'s blog thread, which seems unusual if\nthe results are as characterized.\n\nThanks in advance.\n\nRoss Rhodes\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Does anybody have information about a claim by Kathryn Cramer (apparently
daughter of John Cramer) that on April 27, 2004, Shahriar S. Afshar
presented at Texas A&M the results of an optical experiment,

"in which he demonstrates that wave interference is present even when one is
determining through which pinhole a photon passes. This result is in direct
contradiction to Neils Bohr's Principle of Complementarity <snip>.

"Afshar's trick is to find the location of the minimum points of wave
interference, place one or more wires at these minimum points, and observe
how much light is intercepted when one is determining the pinhole through
which the photons passed. <Snip> the Afshar Experiment falsifies the
Copenhagen Interpretation, which requires the absence of interference in a
particle-type measurement. It also falsifies the Many-Worlds Interpretation
which tells us to expect no interference between 'worlds' that are
physically distinguishable, e.g., that correspond to the photon's measured
passage through one pinhole or the other."

http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000530.html

Although I see that Afshar did speak at Texas A&M on that date, I find
nothing about it outside of Ms. Cramer's blog thread, which seems unusual if
the results are as characterized.

Ross Rhodes

 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Study provides better understanding of water's freezing behavior at nanoscale>> Soft matter offers new ways to study how ordered materials arrange themselves>> Making quantum encryption practical


"Ross Rhodes" wrote in message news:<10ah9vr9ms6h4ef@corp.supernews.com>... > Does anybody have information about a claim by Kathryn Cramer (apparently > daughter of John Cramer) that on April 27, 2004, Shahriar S. Afshar > presented at Texas A&M the results of an optical experiment, She posted a follow-up: http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000555.html What this experiment means remains to be seen. Note that she's jumping to conclusions when she states, "On this basis, it appears that two of the major interpretations of quantum mechanics have been falsified and should be relegated to the waste basket of physics history. The Transactional Interpretation, which involves a forward/back in time handshake, is one of the few (perhaps the only) interpretation(s) left standing after the Afshar test." John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation suffers from some serious problems, i.e., it leads to macroscopic violations of causality; see Tim Maudlin's book "Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity." If anything (and if I understand the experiment correctly), this result (if correct) would support a DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation or a Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber-Pearle spontaneous localization interpretation, but it's too early to tell because it is not clear what the experiment entails. Nothing has even been published yet. Hence this is all speculation.



In article <10ah9vr9ms6h4ef@corp.supernews.com>, "Ross Rhodes" wrote: > Does anybody have information about a claim by Kathryn Cramer (apparently > daughter of John Cramer) that on April 27, 2004, Shahriar S. Afshar > presented at Texas A&M the results of an optical experiment, > > "in which he demonstrates that wave interference is present even when one is > determining through which pinhole a photon passes. This result is in direct > contradiction to Neils Bohr's Principle of Complementarity . This is wrong. I'm not sure how precisely Bohr defined complementarity, but I can't come up with any useful definition that this experiment violates. > "Afshar's trick is to find the location of the minimum points of wave > interference, place one or more wires at these minimum points, and observe > how much light is intercepted when one is determining the pinhole through > which the photons passed. the Afshar Experiment falsifies the > Copenhagen Interpretation, which requires the absence of interference in a > particle-type measurement. It also falsifies the Many-Worlds Interpretation > which tells us to expect no interference between 'worlds' that are > physically distinguishable, e.g., that correspond to the photon's measured > passage through one pinhole or the other." It certainly doesn't violate many worlds because there is no interaction between the wires and the photons, so there's no decoherence. It is a violation of an incorrect caricature of many worlds. Aaron

## Afshar experimental refutation of Bohr??

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On 19 May 2004 04:39:33 -0400, backdoorstudent@yahoo.com\n(backdoorstudent) wrote:\n\n&gt;If anything (and if I understand the experiment correctly), this\n&gt;result (if correct) would support a DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation or a\n&gt;Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber-Pearle spontaneous localization interpretation,\n&gt;but it\'s too early to tell because it is not clear what the experiment\n&gt;entails.\n\n\nIn fact the experiment can be modeled numerically within the framework\nof EEQT and its results are not surprising at all. According to EEQT\nthe Copenhagen interpretation is nothing but a silly and primitive limit\nof a deeper theory involving quantum jumps and observations that are\ncontinuous in time.\n\nA simple Java implementation of EEQT formalism with detectors in one\ndimension can be found here:\n\nhttp://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/qfractals.htm\n\nunder "EEQT Lab Java Applet".\n\nGhirardi-Rimini-Weber-Pearle is a particular case of EEQT, when\ndetectors are distributed homogeneously in space (which is rarely\na good approximation) - see\n\nhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9812081\n\nark\n--\n\nArkadiusz Jadczyk\nhttp://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/homepage.htm\n\n--\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On 19 May 2004 04:39:33 $-0400,$ backdoorstudent@yahoo.com
(backdoorstudent) wrote:

>If anything (and if I understand the experiment correctly), this
>result (if correct) would support a DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation or a
>Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber-Pearle spontaneous localization interpretation,
>but it's too early to tell because it is not clear what the experiment
>entails.

In fact the experiment can be modeled numerically within the framework
of EEQT and its results are not surprising at all. According to EEQT
the Copenhagen interpretation is nothing but a silly and primitive limit
of a deeper theory involving quantum jumps and observations that are
continuous in time.

A simple Java implementation of EEQT formalism with detectors in one
dimension can be found here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/qfractals.htm

under "EEQT Lab Java Applet".

Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber-Pearle is a particular case of EEQT, when
detectors are distributed homogeneously in space (which is rarely
a good approximation) - see

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.a...ant-ph/9812081

ark
--