XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 6/03/2026 9:32 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   It might be if it were remotely true. Inventions tend to happen at much   
   the same time in several different places and several people do tend to   
   try and patent the same invention.   
      
   On one occasion I read an article in the peer-reviewed literature and   
   told my bosses that it suggested a new and patentable way of controlling   
   a GaAs single crystal puller. A couple months later the editor of the   
   journal, who had edited the article himself, showed up with just such a   
   patent. He already had a patent (which had struck me as dubious) for   
   another scheme for controlling the GaAs single crystal puller we sold   
   (and produced 95% of the single crystal GaAs sold on our side of the   
   Iron Curtain).   
      
   Science is a mechanism for publishing useful insights, and such insights   
   have been known to inspire patentable applications.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)