DrChinese said: 3. At this point, I assume the publishing was allowed to go forward because the results themselves are reproducible. I do not doubt that there will be debate on what the results themselves say. I think the quote from Wheeler (". . . for quantum theory to say in one breath ‘through which slit’ and in another ‘through both’ is logically inconsistent...") can be construed many ways. I certainly don't see this experiment as particularly supporting it.

A good reviewer looks at the merits of the experiment itself.I think the reviewer has been convinced that there must be aninterference pattern and that the light through the two holes isfocused on two different locations. I'm convinced as well. It'sjust what you expect from classical optics. I would have likedto see the figure on page 299 earlier. It nicely addresses thediffraction grating ideas Vanesch and I discussed here:Now is BPC (Bohr’s principle of Complementarity) in conflictwith Classical Optics?BPC says that a single photon can only behave either as a waveor as a particle, but not both a the same time. Classical Opticssays that photons ALWAYS behave as waves, (until they'refinally absorbed) So yes, I think there is conflict indeed.For me the essential point is that the wave can go anywhere,follows all possible paths, all over the place, while the absorptiononly occurs at one single place.Now which path was followed by that what caused the absorption?(that what we call the "particle") Why does the remainder of thewave lead NOT to an absorption elsewhere? What happens at allwith the remainder of the wave? This is the mystery of Unitariy.BPC wants to remove the wave from all paths that were unlikelyto be followed by that what caused the absorption. It suggestsa partial remedy for the "Collapse of the wave function":(1) If a photon is split by a beam splitter and detected Left andnot Right then BPC says that nothing went Right, neither particle,nor wave. So we don’t need to explain what happened to thewave at the Right side.(2) If a photon is split by a beam splitter and both sides are madeto interfere then BPC says that the photon went both ways, So inthis case the wave follows both paths.Now, In case of the experiment under discussion, BPC would,when recognizing the detection at Left, want to remove everythingfrom the other path like in (1) However, this would also removethe interference and thus the result of the experiment.So BPC is in conflict with Classical Optics and thus with Bohr’sother principle: That of Correspondence.Bohr’s Principle of Correspondence (1923)Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity (1927)Bohr’s Principle of Correspondence states that if the light consistout of sufficient numbers of photons we should get the ClassicalOptics result back. No quantum mechanical interactions took placeother than the final absorption in the detectors.Both the experiments discussed on this thread produce the resultsthat would be expected from Classical Optics.Regards, Hans