On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 5:23 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> *Nothing personal and I agree nothing is perfect, however I think that >> Wikipedia is closer to being absolutely true in all things than you are, or >> that I am.* >> > > *> I think one should exercise a reasonable degree of scepticism when > Wikipedia makes egregious errors, as in this case. The claim is that each > measurement reveals a property that the particle already possessed. The > article then goes on to say that no single trial can measure the quantity > of interest, so they consider the average over many trials, or the > expectation value. Unfortunately for the writer of the article, the quantum > expectation value does not depend on the physical properties existing > independently of being observed or measured. So the assumption of realism > is completely spurious. Wikipedia is not a reliable source......* > *OK let's recap, Wikipedia is wrong, Claude is wrong, GPT is wrong, Gemini is wrong, Bing Autopilot is wrong, and I am wrong. But you are right. Well... Maybe, but probably not. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* i.. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1UhFuWx6wXCMLGncYMZOodg%3Ddv7d0Lni1gTc-UMtpFdg%40mail.gmail.com.
