Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0802.0245 · Foundations of Physics

Reply to Comments of Steuernagel on the Afshar’s Experiment

Eduardo V. Flores

Published Aug 1, 2008• 13 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s10701-008-9234-0

Related papers

The Afshar Experiment and Complementarity

Ruth E. Kastner

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 13, 2006•0 citations

Why the Afshar experiment does not refute complementarity

Ruth E. Kastner

arXiv:quant-ph/0502021•Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Sep 22, 2005•25 citations

Afshar’s Experiment Does Not Show a Violation of Complementarity

Ole Steuernagel

arXiv:quant-ph/0512123•Foundations of Physics•Aug 2, 2007•23 citations

Comment on "On Visibility in the Afshar Two-Slit Experiment"

Tabish Qureshi

Recently Kastner has analyzed the issue of visibility in a modified two-slit experiment carried out by Afshar et al, which has been a subject of much debate. Kastner describes a thought experiment which is claimed to show interference with hundred percent visibility and also an "apparent" which-slit information. We argue that this thought experiment does not show interference at all, and is thus not applicable to the Afshar experiment.

arXiv:1002.3686•Feb 19, 2010•1 citation

Comment on Pictet’s experiment

S. Penn

American Journal of Physics•Feb 1, 1986•12 citations

Comment on Afshar's expriments

Daniel Reitzner

Results of the experiments carried out in [Shahriar S. Afshar, Proc. SPIE bf 5866 (2005) 229-244] and [Shahriar S. Afshar, AIP Cof. Proc. 810, (2006) 294-299] are reviewed and their interpretation by the authors is questioned. Arguments are supported by numerical simulations.

arXiv:quant-ph/0701152•Jan 22, 2007•3 citations