XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   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   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)