Quantum physics
Quantum physics and its application in brain studies already has attracted a big deal of attention. However some of the concepts in quantum theory are so strange compared with the classical intuition that many instead of proper mathematical study try to create imaginatory scenarios based on misunderstandings available in popular press. Also as it comes out even the working physicists are prone to production of inconsistent papers, publish inconsistent results, etc.
ICFAI J. Phys. Editorial FOCUS
In the following paper is provided a novel way for one to study Bohr's complementarity, which is full with mathematical details. The author thinks that the parallel study of Unruh's double Mach-Zehnder setup and Afshar's lens setup is of great benefit in order for one the grasp why existent quantum cross-interference erases irreversibly existent the which way information (provable bijections).
The topics presented in depth are:
Georgiev DD. Quantum operator approach to Unruh's and Afshar's setups. The Icfai University Journal of Physics 2008; 1(1): 7-33. [pdf]
The Georgiev-Unruh debate
Georgiev DD. Single photon experiments and quantum
complementarity. Progress In Physics 2007; 2: 97-103. [pdf]
Unruh WG. Comment on "Single Photon Experiments and Quantum Complementarity" by D. Georgiev. Progress In Physics 2007; 3: 27. [pdf]
Georgiev DD. Exact mapping of quantum waves between Unruh's and Afshar's setup (Reply to W. Unruh). Progress In Physics 2007; 3: 28-33. [pdf]
Mathematically correct publications on Afshar's setup
Publications by independent researchers proving also that the double peak image at the image plane of a lens, even without obstacles on photon path, IS an interference pattern, and does not contain which way information.
Qureshi T (2007). "Complementarity and the Afshar Experiment". [full text]
Reitzner D (2007). "Comment on Afshar's expriments" [full text]
Mathematically incorrect publications on Afshar's setup
In the following list, I provide links to various published papers or e-prints, which contain critical errors. The list is incomplete, I have collected the most popular confusions only, without focus on papers containing numerous flaws.
Confusion 1: Bohr's complementarity is wrong, based on mathematically inconsistent argument.
Afshar SS, Flores E, McDonald KF, Knoesel E. (2007). "Paradox in wave-particle duality". Foundations of Physics 37 (2): 295-305. [full text]
Afshar SS (2006). "Violation of Bohr's complementarity: one slit or both?". AIP Conference Proceedings 810: 294-299. [full text]
Afshar SS (2005). "Violation of the principle of complementarity, and its implications". Proceedings of SPIE 5866: 229-244. [full text]
Afshar SS (2003). "Sharp complementary wave and particle behaviours in the same welcher weg experiment". IRIMS e-print. [full text]
Flores E, Knoesel E (2007). "Why Kastner analysis does not apply to a modified Afshar experiment". [full text]
Flores EV (2008). "Reply to Comments of Steuernagel on the Afshar's Experiment" [full text]
Cramer JG (2004). "Bohr is still wrong". New Scientist 183 (2461): 26. [full text]
Cramer JG (2004). "The Blind Men and The Quantum". The First Hal Clement Memorial Lecture, The Boskone 41 Science Fiction Convention, Boston Sheraton Hotel. [full text]
Cramer JG (2005). "A farewell to Copenhagen?". Analog Science Fiction and Fact. [full text]
O'Hara P (2006). "Entanglement and quantum interference". [full text]
Confusion 2: Bohr's complementarity is correct, based on mathematically inconsistent argument defending Bohr.
Kastner R (2005). "Why the Afshar experiment does not refute complementarity?". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36: 649–658. [full text]
Kastner RE (2008). "On Visibility in the Afshar Two-Slit Experiment". [full text]
Unruh W (2004). "Shahriar Afshar - Quantum Rebel?". [full text]
Steuernagel O (2005). "Afshar's experiment does not show a violation of complementarity". Foundations of Physics 37(9): 1370-1385. [full text]
Motl L (2004). "Violation of complementarity?". [full text]
Drezet A (2005). "Complementarity and Afshar's experiment". [full text]
Confusion 3: Unruh's double Mach-Zehnder setup and Afshar's lens setup are fundamentally different.
Gunther NJ (2005). "Afshar Explained". [full text] (NOTE!: this paper provides correct analysis of Afshar's lens setup, but erroneously calculates the which way information in Unruh's double Mach-Zehnder setup.)