[NOTE, 12/13: I have included the comment section of this post when resrrecting it in Typepad.]
John Cramer (my dad, for those who came in late) responds to issues raised in the the New Scientist Letter Column regarding the Afshar experiment. This just in via email:
I sent the following letter-to-the-editor to New Scientist:
A number of your readers have pointed out that Afshar's grid wires are
placed in just the positions that would form a diffraction grating creating
an image of pinhole 1 at the position of the pinhole 2 image. Does this
destroy the purity of Afshar's "which-way" measurement?
I raised the same question with Afshar earlier this year, and the answer is
no. Reason: the wires intercept no light and so cannot diffract. He has
done a variation of his experiment using ONLY A SINGLE WIRE and recorded all
the light in the focal plane of the pinholes under three conditions: (1)
wire in, one pinhole; (2) wire in, two pinholes; and (3) wire out, two
pinholes. Measurement (1) shows lots of scattering from the wire away from
the image points, indicating that with only one pinhole open the wire is
intercepting and scattering light Measurements (2) and (3) show clear
images of the pinholes with nothing in between and are indistinguishable.
Conclusion: no light is scattered or intercepted by the wire in measurement
(2) because the interference pattern is present, and the wire is at an
intensity-zero position of the pattern. A single wire cannot function as a
diffraction grating. Bohr is still wrong.
John G. Cramer
Professor of Physics
University of Washington
Kathryn Cramer at August 6, 2004 01:13 PM
| Link Cosmos | Purple Numbers | Edit
Cramer says ( see his power point ): Copenhagen-influenced expectation: The measurement-type forces particle-like behavior, so there should be no interference, and no minima. Therefore, 6% of the particles should be intercepted.
This means (following Cramer) that Bohr will predict that there is no interference in front of the lens. But I have a reply evident to Cramer : Are you sure that you have a which path experiment ???? If you have such proof (I have the proof of the opposite) I think that Afshar could give you his 1000 $ (that he proposed to me and to others ) because you will prove in the same time that Schrodinger equation is wrong or that 1+1 =3.
My conclusion (or my introduction):
A quantum system can not carry enough information to provide definite answers to all questions that can be questionned experimentally ....
my former boss who wrote this sentence and knows quite well quantum mechanics is certainly right...
Think a little to it: the most important word is experimentally but the rest is nice too...
Aurel.: a advocate of Bohr and Einstein (and of beer)
NB: even If dont like the point of view of Bohr it seems that Bohr will win again and again ( always?) . It is sad but Ok we can continue to drink beer ....nevertheless.... perhaps
NB(2): If you can give me a preprint of the Afshar paper I can write you a comment for FREE to incredible physics letters a new journal about donald duck in the quantum word
Raymond Archer was an employee of the Steele Foundation he had been hired sometime around March or April of 2003.
He is not a coup specialist...he was hired as part of the dignitary protection team assigned to protect aristide.
His employment ended when aristide was ousted as did they employment of other Steele members who were not reassigned to contracts in the middle east
For further clarification:
The protection detail assigned to Aristide was a US State Dept approved contract awarded to The Steele Foundation
The protection team was an international team consisting former US military, former British military, and a few former South African Special Forces.
The protection detail was forced to leave by the U.S. with Aristide. For more info concerning this go to Interview with Kenneth Kurtz, Steele Foundation conducted by Amy Goodman on Tuesday March 2nd 2004 in the Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org)
There are major flaws in the answers provided in this interview
I am surpised by the presence of th South Africans, since the news reports I had read of the Steele Aristide group portrayed them as exclusively US special forces.
When you say "The protection detail was forced to leave by the U.S. with Aristide," I presume that what you mean by "with" is simultaneous with, as opposed to accompanying; which is to say that you are not telling me they were forced onto the plane with him?
(That interview on Democracy Now is pretty evasive, isn't it?)
The protection detail left Haiti on the same aircraft as Aristide. There was a meeting late in the evening the night before we departed the country with protection team members and reps from the U.S. Some of us (protection team) inquired about staying behind and not leaving with Arisitde. We were told we had no choice in the matter and refusal could put in jeopardy our military retirement (US personnel only). This information never was reported or printed anywhere to my knowledge and was certainly not covered by Mr. Kurtz in his interview. The entire detail left with Aristide. Mr. Kurtz denies in the article they (protection team) were forced to leave. This is simply not true. For a more detailed account of the departure and ruse employed by the US Government go to interview with Aristide and his bodyguards conducted by Amy Goodman March 16, 2004 in Democracy Now (democracynow.org) or (www.thirdworldtraveler.com/haiti/aristide&bodyguard_DN.html)
Thanks. This is fascinating.