On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 9:34 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. * > What about a reasoned argument, rather than just venting spleen...... -- 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/CAFxXSLSQpKT37MnFaCaPsvGM2ymsJ_GxmDLCGPY_Vefxw6ZTSw%40mail.gmail.com.
