From: jeroen@nospam.please   
      
   On 3/5/26 22:03, 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   
   >   
      
   I never said quantum mechanics is wrong. It's just the way it's   
   explained that is. I have a better explanation, but this space   
   is too small to contain it.   
      
   Don't lecture me on netiquette.   
      
   Jeroen Belleman   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)