Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 21

message: Hello anonymous. I perfectly agree with what you say that there is no which way information at first place, so please see my PhilSci paper. I have proved much more than this actually. Since 2004 I am leading alone this battle to mathematically show that the "which way" claim is wrong at first place, but I was met with ridicule by Afshar, Unruh, Drezet and others who claim themselves expert physicists and fail to see that they do inconsistent mathematics. Danko Georgiev MD 09:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the anonymous user was itself  Tabish Qureshi, who initially added the link to his own article (well, I might be wrong). If so, I am glad to continue this discussion with him, since I have read his paper, and he insists that the thin wires block the "canceling each other components" coming from the opposite slits. Yes, true, but the central argument in the whole discussion is that there is NO which way information even if you do not put wires at all. This is evident in the Unruh's setup that I discuss in detail.  Tabish Qureshi in his paper is afraid that someone "might argue these components do not cancel each other". Yes, it is possible, but then one argues that the density matrix of the qubit is "mixed state". Therefore if one does so, he must also postulate metaphysical immunization in the form "mixed state density matrix cannot be distinguished by pure state density matrix". This second claim remains hidden for Afshar, Unruh, and others, and I hope that when they realize that, they will withdraw their false statements, and appologize for posting nonsense. Danko Georgiev MD 10:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To anonymous 

message: FOR ADMIN.S' RECORD: I reverted Danko's OR on which-way information. He tried to use Prof. Qureshi who is new to Wikipedia to rewrite the article while removing links to my rebottles to critics (sneaky vandalism) without any discussion. This type of behavior should not be tolerated. As for Prof. Qureshi, the above discussion seems to have resolved the issue, but putting OR on the article page or here is totally unacceptable, and I will be forced to remove it. Even Wikipedia must have standards that disallows cranks from defacing an article. Best regards.-- Prof.Afshar 17:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Afshar, nothing has been resolved, it is obvious that you do not read what others post, but you try to impose them your own words. T. Qureshi just several lines above has written "To understand why an earlier overlap causes loss of which-way information" which is translated "there is NO which way information" something that I have stated explicitly, and now another expert physicist explicitly formulates too. Read his paper before you post. Nothing is resolved, Qureshi's editing called "fundamental flaw in Afshar's interpretation" already has been removed by you and your company from the main article. I hope you yourself revert my last edit, where I have presented the both types of objection against your interpretation in relatively neutral way. You cannot go against mathematics, and insult others. Danko Georgiev MD 05:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Vandalism and OR pushing by Danko Georgiev

message: I have done a lot of work to convert all the references into ordered bibliographic information. Please use one of the ready templates that I have incorporated in the main article when you insert new reference. Thanks in advance! Danko Georgiev MD 05:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference style updated