XPost: sci.physics   
   From: jl@glen--canyon.com   
      
   On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 22:03:27 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn   
    wrote:   
      
   >Jeroen Belleman wrote:   
   >> On 3/5/26 15:43, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>> Invoking imaginary explanations for something that looks perfectly   
   >>> explicable when looked at carefully isn't a route to getting taken   
   >>> seriously.   
   >>   
   >> Mmmh. The QM crowd seems to be getting away with it...   
   >   
   >The outcome of measurements of systems that are small enough is   
   >probabilistic in a very particular way.  The best explanation so far is a   
   >superposition of quantum states.  With that we can calculate/predict those   
   >probabilities.   
   >   
   >If you have a better explanation, post it.  Otherwise you should be silent   
   >because you are arguing from your ignorance of the subject matter.   
   >   
   >This attitude is particularly disturbing to read in sci.electronics.design   
   >because there would not be any electronics if quantum mechanics were   
   >fundamentally wrong: "electronics" comes from "electrons", and those are   
   >definitely objects that behave as quantum mechanics predicts.   
   >   
   >Also, the From header field of your messages should contain a valid e-mail   
   >address, as you have been told numerous times before.   
   >   
   >F'up2 sci.physics   
      
   This is a wonderful thread. 576 long-winded posts full of insults, in   
   just s.e.d. alone so far, and no end in sight.   
      
   I humbly note that electronics was invented before qm was formulated.   
   It's a good argument that people invent things and scientists come   
   along later to explain them.   
      
      
      
      
   John Larkin   
   Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center   
   Lunatic Fringe Electronics   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)